Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:53, 24 April 2007

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

People by city in Maryland

Delete all - In response to comments on various CFMs and having had some concerns about this categorization scheme for a while, this is a "test the waters" nomination delaing with one state with a small number of sub-cats. Categorizing people on the basis of having been "born in, residents of or otherwise closely associated with" particular cities is overcategorization. It is rare that affiliation with a city is a defining characteristic for the vast majority of people. In those cases where it is, it's usually because the person is associated with the city in an official capacity such as being the mayor or a notable police officer, and Category:Mayors by city and similar for other city-level officials better serve to capture such people. Categorizing on the city level brings together people who have little or nothing in common beyond geographic coincidence. People move, making the categorization even less meaningful and meaning that people can end up categorized as being from multiple cities, leading to category clutter. For example, if I had a Wikipedia article I could have as many as eight city categories because that's how many cities I have either been born in, lived in or been associated with to various degrees of closeness. Categorizing at the state level, either as "People from Maryland" or in one of the many occupation-specific Maryland categories, is more than sufficient for purposes of geographic origin. While I might otherwise suggest merging all of these to Category:People from Maryland, in somewhat randomly choosing this state I find that a number of the categories encompass not only Maryland but surrounding counties in other states, making a merger inappropriate because of the resultant possible miscategorization, and additionally each of the articles I looked at in the course of tagging the categories already has at least one Maryland-specific category already. Should this nomination pass and other states be nominated, merger may be a better option in other cases. Otto4711 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per conventions of Category:People by city in the United States. I agree that sometimes this really goes too far ... I'm currently living in my 11th city. On the other hand, there are many people who live in one place for nearly all their lives. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is addressing the entire People by city in the United States categorization system. The convention itself is being questioned. Otto4711 14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, but if they must be removed then upmerge to the appropriate state categories. These "People from xxx" categories are, in many cases, the renamed versions of the former "Natives of xx" categories, which were renamed because there isn't a clear definition of "native" and the concept of a "strong association" was useful.
I think that you have a useful point about category clutter, but that could be resolved simply by tightening the category definition a little to remove mere residency as a criterion for inclusion. The test should be whether someone lived in a city for a significant proportion of their lives, or achieved notability through their association with the city, or achieved notable things in the city. Sure, we already have categories for mayors, but every city has notable businesspeople, notable artists etc, and removing these categories removes the link in the category system.
As but one example: Philip Glass is a notable son of Baltimore, and is not in any other category relating to that city. I would be surprised if he didn't think that growing in Baltimore had been an important part of his development.
The fact that some cities straddle state boundaries is, in fact, a good reason to keep the categories rather than delete them -- if we delete Category:People from Cumberland, Maryland, then there will some confusion as to whether the biogs should be categorised under Category:People from Maryland or Category:People from West Virgina, with the result that they may end up in neither or both.
By-state categorisation might not be too unwieldy for somewhere like Delaware, but for New York or California, it would lead to huge and un-navigable categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by culture

Feels very redundant. Country of origin or theme should be used. It would be futile to recategorized all anime under this for being "Japanese culture". "Category:Tango films" is perfectly fine as a sub category of Category:Argentine films. It is redundant to recategorized it as a subcat of Category:Films by culture. All films are "culture" related. -- Cat ^chi? 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Category:Films by culture[reply]

Speedy close as disruptive, bad faith WP:POINT nomination, otherwise strong keep.

"Strong Keep" because there are several useful categories of films by culture (such as Category:Jewish films which don't fit national boundaries, and this category is a useful grouping of them.

Speedy close" because this nomination is transparently designed to justify the removal Kurdish-related categories. The nominator concerned appears to have a big problem with categories relating to Kurdistan, and started several CfDs yesterday for Kurdish categories: History of Kurdistan, Kurdish inhabited regions and Kurdish films.

Cool Cat also nominated several geographical categories which are not based on national or administrative divisions, seeking to establish a principle that only current national or sub-national boundaries may be used to categorise cities and settlements: see, for example, CFD for Cities on the Great Lakes.
This nomination follows an exchange on the CFD for Kurdish films, where Cool Cat makes the goal explicit: extract below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not copy other discussions. You may link to them. Please take personal reasons to WP:ANB/I if you feel someone is being disruptive. -- Cat ^chi? 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malaysian private universities

Propose renaming Category:Malaysian private universities to Category:Private universities and Malaysia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename (conventional word order). Perebourne 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but perhaps you mean Category:Private universities '''in''' Malaysia? Otto4711 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Private universities in Malaysia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename to Category:Private universities in Malaysia. -- Cat ^chi? 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Formerly Japan exclusive video game franchises

Not a defining characteristic, and there's a very limited number (currently two) of these franchises for this category to be useful. Combination 12:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think we recently deleted a similar category for individual video games as well. Otto4711 12:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscience

Delete, Articles in this section are put here based on some criticism of the scientific foundation of the contents in question. Those criticisms should be made explicit in the articles to enhance their quality instead of using a category which clearly discredits the whole article.. Kjell.kuehne 12:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "criticism of the scientific foundation" can be categorized accordingly. -- Cat ^chi? 13:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but restrict to articles related to the important concept of pseudoscience, rather that to subjects which are alleged to be pseudo-scientific. (This will involve removing most the current articles and sub-cats). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with dyslexia

Delete - This is the categorization of people by learning disability. My argument against this category is that people are not notable for being dyslexic but are instead notable for either accomplishing other things or acting as advocates for dyslexics. This may also be a fairly common learning disability, so it is unclear as to whether it is a defining trait. Also note that similar categories for people with diseases (Category:People with diabetes) and for people with psychological conditions (Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression) have recently been deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, next would be folicaly challenged (bald) people... -- Cat ^chi? 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional LGBT characters

The category content is limited to four articles with names like "list of LGBT characters". There's no real reason why this shouldn't be in the parent cat, so I suggest upmerge. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the category is a reasonable subcat of Category:Lists of fictional characters and Category:LGBT people which is where it's currently situated. Not seeing any reason to upmerge to either category. Otto4711 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason why those four particular lists couldn't be in both parent cats you mention? This is small and seems unlikely to grow much. >Radiant< 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. No better than LGBT murderers. It is even fictional and not "real". -- Cat ^chi? 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge! :) Makes way more sense to have the lists in the top left of the parent category.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters by work

Redundant to the more heavily used Category:Lists of fictional characters by series. Is it really important for subcatting whether a list of characters apply to a single book or a series of books? Suggest merge. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the simple reason that these are not series, so categorizing them as "...by series" is inaccurate. Otto4711 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but we could perhaps think of a better name? >Radiant< 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters by medical condition

Very narrow, unless you count "dead" as a medical condition (heck, even "alcoholism" is somewhat doubtful in the context of fictional characters). Suggest upmerge. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two of the three articles are likely to be deleted and the third is already appropriately categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional albinos

I don't think categorizing people by appearance is all that useful. While albinism is a medical condition in real life, in fiction it is effectively little different from "characters with red hair". It's also a semi-common trait to make "mystical" characters more special (like green eyes and so forth). >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The categorization of fictional characters by appearance generally brings together unrelated characters. Here, for example, Caliban (comics) has little in common with Malfoy. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Amazons

This is a strange categorization because most of these "Amazons" really aren't. The Amazons were a race of female warriors in Greek mythology. It so happens that many fictional stories picked up the archetype of "female warrior" and put a tribe of them somewhere. As a result this category contains a few "wannabe" Amazons (per the article), a bunch of superheroes, a few groups from China which also had warrior women, and so forth. These characters aren't meaningfully related, and really aren't Amazons. Category:Fictional women in war covers it better. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category does appear to interpret the term "amazon" a little loosely. However, I am not even convinced that Category:Fictional women in war is appropriate for some of these people, such as the superheroes and anime characters. For example, Shampoo (Ranma ½) is better categorized under Category:Fictional martial artists. The other categories for these articles are probably better. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional dyslexics

Not being able to read well is hardly a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization by learning disability is going to be problematic, especially if the characters are not formally diagnosed with dyslexia. This could lead into original research problems where editors attempt to identify dyslexic characters. The characters probably have little else in common aside from dyslexia. (Note that Category:People with dyslexia currently exists and probably should be nominated for deletion given the trend with similar categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iota Phi Theta brothers, Category:Gamma Eta Gamma brothers, Category:Delta Zeta Phi brothers, Category:Delta Sigma Theta sisters, Category:Delta Sigma Rho brothers, Category:Kappa Sigma brothers, Category:Lambda Upsilon Lambda hermanos, Category:Omega Psi Phi brothers, Category:Omicron Delta Kappa members and Category:Phi Alpha Delta brothers

Per guideline and precedent, membership in a student frat is not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 10:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most people are not notable for being fraternity/sorority members but are instead notable for their accomplishments beyond college. The previous discussions led to consensus on that viewpoint. This category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lots of previous discussions on fraternity membership categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC. -- Cat ^chi? 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skaters of religions

I don't like putting up religion/occupation categories on CfD, but this seems overly specific. I would personally support a Category:Christian sportspeople since there are organizations like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but the fact is I'm alone on that. Plus even I think this is too specific as it only seems important in the case of Paul Wylie. Lastly I have concerns it was made as a protest of the Jewish or LGBT figure skaters CfDs.--T. Anthony 09:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both per nom as random intersection, unless someone can show that there is a particularly Catholic or Christian way to do figure skating, or that the sport has a history of excluding Catholics or Christians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my other comments on the other figure skaters categories below. Dr. Submillimeter 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of July 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC and WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference -- Cat ^chi? 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Nashville

Merge into Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Tennessee. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge' into Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee per nom as obvious duplicate; oppose upmeger as proposed by Otto (just clarifying my vote). Otto, if you want the state tobe te lowest level of geographical categorisation for American people, please do a group nomination for the geographical subcats of Category:People from Tennessee and/or any other states ... but don't single out one of several geographical subcats of Category:People from Tennessee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger because Nashville is a large enough city to merit a "People from" category. Now Category:People from Morristown, Tennessee, Category:People from Middlesboro, Kentucky, Category:People from Weirton, West Virginia and a few others seem kind of pointless.--T. Anthony 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Indianapolis

Merge into Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Indiana. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it isb to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Indiana. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger because Indianapolis is a large enough city to merit a "People from" category. Now Category:People from Anna, Illinois, Category:People from Humboldt, Kansas, Category:People from Jaffrey, New Hampshire, Category:People from Blossom, Texas, Category:People from Quanah, Texas, and a few others seem kind of pointless.--T. Anthony 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Fort Worth

Merge into Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Texas. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories, including coincidentally this one). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it is to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Texas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger because Fort Worth, Texas is a large enough city to merit a "People from" category. Now Category:People from Blossom, Texas, Category:People from Quanah, Texas, Category:People from Vernon, Texas and a few others seem kind of pointless.--T. Anthony 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who Play Recasted characters

Delete. Terribly inconsequential way to define an actor. --SubSeven 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a variety of performer by performance categorization, plus it's a grammatical mess. Otto4711 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stupid category. And I'll bet you a nickel I know what multiply banned user's sockpuppet created the category.[1][2] Doczilla 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely meaningless category. --Blue Tie 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Chicago Heights

Merge into Category:People from Chicago Heights, Illinois, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Illinois. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Chicago Heights, Illinois per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it is to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Illinois. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from St. Louis

Merge into Category:People from St. Louis, Missouri, convention of Category:People by city in the United States, or the reverse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Missouri. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for now to the standard. If someone wants to bring up the larger issue of Category:People by city in the United States, then do that as it's own nomination. Vegaswikian 05:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from St. Louis, Missouri per nom as obvious duplicate. Per Vegaswikian, Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it is to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Missouri. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People related to Mormonism-related controversies

Overcategorization per WP:OC. Also no criteria. What is a "Mormon-related" controversy? How are people "related" to a "related" controversy? Are they second cousins? Vague, undefined, cufty, and overcategorized. Blue Tie 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague "related to" which could include almost anyone. Delete per all the other deletions of vague, broad, useless "controversy" articles. Doczilla 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue -- Cat ^chi? 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American figure skaters by ethnicity

Merge into Category:American figure skaters, Nationality / Ethnicity / Sport triple intersections. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm uncertain. For a variety of reasons African-American/Black athletes in winter sports are comparatively rare and tend to get attention. A part of me thinks that's not a good thing and may even be demeaning in some way. Still it is true to a large extent. On the other hand Category:Black Winter Olympics medalists maybe deals with that enough. I could go either way at this point so will hold off from voting until later.--T. Anthony 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:American figure skaters - These categories are merely a collection of names that say nothing important about the subject. The issue of ethnicity (or gender, sexual preference, or religious background) in any specific career is better addressed by writing articles on the subject rather than listing people in that career who belong to that specific group. Dr. Submillimeter 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Irrelevant intersection. AshbyJnr 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference -- Cat ^chi? 13:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People known by pseudonyms

Delete - Overcategorization by name of people who have little else in common beyond using a name other than the one they were born with. Otto4711 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreation? What indicates that this was previously deleted? (Not the log, not a previous CfD.) –Unint 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not recent enough to qualify for a speedy. The old one was probably worded a little differently, but I guarantee you we've gone through at least one version of this one before. Regardless, delete excessively broad category with too many members. Doczilla 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is such a common practice for so many entertainers that it is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for obvious reasons. -- Cat ^chi? 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rappers known by pseudonyms

Delete - the counterpoint to the apparently soon to be deleted category for rappers known by their birth names. This is overcategorization by name. Otto4711 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is such a common practice for so many rappers that it is not a defining characteristic. (Hey, aren't we all using pseudonyms, too?) Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. When my dad went to register my name, he couldn't remember what had been agreed with my mum, so this was what the registrar recorded. And I do hope that are not trying to suggest that "Submillimeter" is not the name recorded on your birth certificate ... ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a trivial characteristic, and overcategorization by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for obvious reasons. -- Cat ^chi? 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnates

Delete all - there is no objective definition of what constitutes a "magnate" so these categories are based on a subjective inclusion criterion. Otto4711 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as components of a new category for Businesspeople by type of business. There are a few such categories now, e.g. Bankers, but not all those necessary. DGG 05:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "People in the X industry" or a variant thereof. ("People in" is probably the only term that covers, owners, entrepreneurs and executives). AshbyJnr 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that "Businesspeople in", as "people" would include employees like models, actors and presenters for some industries like fashion and media. AshbyJnr 09:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cuban newspapers

Rename to Category:Newspapers published in Cuba, convention of Category:Newspapers by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename AshbyJnr 09:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom, and per WP:CFD#Speedy_criteria #4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename -- Cat ^chi? 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers of Singapore

Rename to Category:Newspapers published in Singapore, convention of Category:Newspapers by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename AshbyJnr 09:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom, and per WP:CFD#Speedy_criteria #4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Speedy rename -- Cat ^chi? 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murray State Racers men's basketball coaches

Propose renaming Category:Murray State Racers men's basketball coaches to Category:Murray State Racers basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This school uses "Lady Racers" for all its women's programs. Also, the parallel category for men's players at the school is at Category:Murray State Racers basketball players. Dale Arnett 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People related to anti-Mormonism

Delete. It is a subjective blacklist labeling criticism in part as opposition in full, implying the false dilemma that one is either pro- or anti-. The article anti-Mormonism redundantly covers these accusations and related rejections of the label. Such blacklists are utilized for censorship and propaganda purposes within Mormonism, with disciplinary actions for people who read banned authors. Anon166 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The parent category was deleted and this is potentially worse than it.--T. Anthony 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ~~Anti-Mormons or~~ People opposed to Mormonism. --Blue Tie 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. No, we can't go with "Anti-Mormons" because those anti-religion categories have been getting deleted as subjective and potential attack categories. I once told a Mormon to go away. Does that make me anti-Mormon? Doczilla 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. I bet you also eat babies ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the very clear nomination as "subjective blacklist labeling criticism in part as opposition in full". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. Cat lovers or haters, Mormonism lovers or haters fall under this. -- Cat ^chi? 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :Speedy close" because this nomination is transparently designed to justify the removal Kurdish-related categories. The nominator concerned appears to have a big problem with categories relating to Kurdistan, and started several CfDs yesterday for Kurdish categories: [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:History_of_Kurdistan|History of Kurdistan]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_regions|Kurdish inhabited regions]] and [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Kurdish_films|Kurdish films]].
 :Cool Cat also nominated several geographical categories which are not based on national or administrative divisions, seeking to establish a principle that only current national or sub-national boundaries may be used to categorise cities and settlements: see, for example, [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_23#Category:Cities_on_the_Great_Lakes|CFD for Cities on the Great Lakes]].<br />This nomination follows an exchange on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Kurdish_films|CFD for Kurdish films]], where Cool Cat makes the goal explicit: extract below. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
+::Do not copy other discussions. You may link to them. Please take personal reasons to [[WP:ANB/I]] if you feel someone is being disruptive. --<small> [[User:Cool Cat|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|chi?]]</sup> 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-<div style="display:box; border:2px dotted black; background-color:#FFFFCC; padding:1em; margin-left:4em">
-*::Cool Cat, "Kurdish-language films" is a ''linguistic'' category, just like other subcats of [[:Category:Films by language]]. The point of this category is the same as that of the subcats of [[:Category:Films by country|Films by country]]: to provide a geographic/cultural category. Yes, Kurdistan is not a nation-state ... but that's not a reason to create a situation where there is no "Kurdish" category for a Kurdish film in English.  Unless, of course, someone has a deeply ingrained anti-Kurdish POV ... --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-*:::The edit conflict more than covered me. I'd have written "Don't we? Check out [[:Category:Films by culture]], [[:Category:Films by location]]..." [[User:NikoSilver|Niko]][[User talk:N!|Silver]] 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-*::::I nominated "films by culture" for deletion too. Films by location would not apply since "Kurdish" is not a location. --<small> [[User:Cool Cat|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|chi?]]</sup> 13:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-*:::::I am stopping here, because I am about to indulge in adhering to [[:m:How to win an argument]]. [[User:NikoSilver|Niko]][[User talk:N!|Silver]] 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-</div>
 ==== Category:Malaysian private universities ====