Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

Scouting biographies

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scouting biographies
Category:Boy Scouts of America biographies
Rename, since all "biographies" categories are for biographical books, whereas these contain articles about actual scouts. I don't know how to denote members of scouting organizations, so I'm leaving this open to suggestions as to the target categories. Unint 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, tell me where is says an article can't be a biography..Rlevse 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Scouting biographies to Category:Scouting associates or Category:People associated with Scouting.
Rename BSA biographies to Category:Boy Scouts of America associates or Category:People associated with the Boy Scouts of America, although I see potential for category abuse so I don't much care for either of those options (I don't want to see every POTUS listed there as honorary BSA president or whatever the title is). Articles about people should not be categorized as biographies, which should be reserved for biographical works. Otto4711 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Rlevse, not everything needs to be written down, some things are simply accepted as conventions. Sumahoy 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scouts and Boy Scouts of America scouts respectively. Scout appears to be the appropriate generic term for a person involved with Scouting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read every categorized article, but are all the people listed actual Scouts, or are some of them associates who were never members? Otto4711 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that both categories contain founders, executives, and organizers (do these count?), as well as people who promoted scouting organizations (though it's not clear if they themselves were also members). –Unint 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use a real-world example, my dad was a Scouting executive for 20-some years but was never a Boy Scout. Were he to be notable enough for an article (he isn't), he would not properly be categorized as a "Scout" but could properly be categorized as a "Scouting associate." Otto4711 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion-WikiProjects frequently collaborate with one another, could not WikiProject Scouting collaborate with WikiProject Biography and make the Scouting bios into a Scouting workgroup within the Bio Project? There's a politician one, a sports one and so on... That would save the ugly, indistinct and cumbersome names that are being suggested. The point of having all Scouting bios tagged similarly is so _not_ to divide them up by nationality or relative position but to bring them together. Chris 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but do not overuse. Scouting is a hobby, and people who did it for a while as a kid should not be added to these categories just as people who play golf as a hobby should not be added to Category:Golfers. Hawkestone 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scouting is not a hobby. It is a way of life and avocation.Rlevse 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For large numbers of Scouts it is just a hobby. Otto4711 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Scout, properly used, is a youth but is sometimes used to refer to adults too, esp when referring to both groups. A Scouter is always an adult involved in Scouting, whether professional or volunteer. I'm open to a new name for the cats, but first we need agreement on what those would be and so far there is none.Rlevse 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People associated with Scouting. Incidentally, an adult can be a "scout". The head of the Scouts in Britain, for example, is the Chief Scout (a title held by Baden-Powell himself) and he certainly isn't a youth. I suspect the term "scouter" may be an American one. -- Necrothesp 00:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People associated with Scouting and Category:People associated with Boy Scouts of America as the current names are inconsistent with the convential usage of terms in Wikipedia. Carina22 14:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Contributors" categories

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

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:VR contributors
Category:Contributors to general relativity
Category:APL contributors
Rename some of these so that all three conform; which ones will have to be determined through discussion. Also rename VR contributors so as to expand the abbreviation to "virtual reality". Also, determine how these categories should relate to Category:Pioneers by field (somewhat related) and Category:People by occupation. Should there be a parent Category:People by contributions made to a field? Unint 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that Category:VR Pioneers (currently in speedy renaming) apparently exists in parallel to VR contributors, with different inclusion criteria for the two categories; are these criteria different enough to justify two categories? Unint 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VR contributors as pointless. No opinion on the other two. Otto4711 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Contributors to general relativity - The inclusion criteria set forth in the category are arbitrary and vague. (According to the category, "the criterion for being listed here is having made a major contribution to the research literature on general relativity, roughly defined as one discussed in well-known textbooks, or featured in major review papers published in mainstream gravitation physics journals.") As a professional astronomer (or astrophysicist), I do not understand why some of these people are listed in this category while others are not. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, these are not precise classifications; this is the type of information for which the context, explanation, and sourcing of article text is needed for it to be anything more than a free association pile-on of names. And lo and behold, we have History of general relativity... Postdlf 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per Postdlf. Use of these cats would seem arbitrary. Jerry lavoie 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The Land Before Time singers

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improper performer by performance categorization. Otto4711 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance categories. Doczilla 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Edge cities

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV, subjective. In time, a city that is currenty an edge city may no longer be an "edge city.". Elle Bee 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, a city could remain an "edge city". But it could also not be one. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; the criteria are discussed in the Edge city article and should be cited to reliable sources. As for the time issue, obviously many things change with cities and towns (population, demographics, political developments, principal buildings, etc.) and their articles are updated accordingly, including adding and deleting categories as appropriate. Simply because a city that is now an edge city might not be one forever is no reason to delete the category! --MCB 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is realistic to hope that edge city will contain an up to date list of current examples, but I don't think it is realistic to expect the category to be up to date at all times. Hawkestone 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shaundakulbara 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia pages that are not essays

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

The result of the debate was delete per WP:POINT and/or WP:SNOW. What's next, Category:Wikipedia pages that are not part of the U.S. constitution? >Radiant< 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category seems to be solely created to make a point. PopUpPirate 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is a nonsensical category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. --Xdamr^talk 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Stupid and pointless category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this junk. Doczilla 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple-time European Footballers of the Year

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 11:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Two-time European Footballers of the Year into Category:European Footballers of the Year

Category:Three-time European Footballers of the Year into Category:European Footballers of the Year

Merge - We should not categorize people by how many times they have won honors. It contributes to category clutter on articles on athletes. Dr. Submillimeter 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what about Category:Multiple Olympic gold medalists. If you don't do that you end up with mosters like Category:1967 Toronto Maple Leafs Stanley Cup Championship Team, which is just dumb. Kevlar67 02:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for a bad category is not an example of a similar category. That usually results in the similar category also being nominated for deletion. I have now just nominated Category:Multiple Olympic gold medalists for deletion. As for Category:1967 Toronto Maple Leafs Stanley Cup Championship Team, I did not understand how that fit into the discussion here (although such categorization is being discussed and reviewed for Super Bowl winners at the moment). Dr. Submillimeter 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as excessive overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need to go as far as categorizing for how many times they have won the award. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Three-time FIFA World Players of the Year

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Three-time FIFA World Players of the Year into Category:FIFA World Players of the Year

Merge - We should not categorize people by how many times they have won honors. It contributes to category clutter on articles on athletes. Dr. Submillimeter 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. ~ Bigr Tex 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as excessive overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need to go as far as categorizing by how many times they have won the award. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)*This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Players who have played for FC Barcelona and Real Madrid

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is for people who have played on two separate teams with an intense rivalry. This could be done in any sport (e.g. "people who have played for the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox", "people who have played for the Green Bay Packers and the Minnesota Vikings", etc.). The number of cross-over categories that are possible may be difficult to estimate. Moreover, such categories contribute to clutter on athlete's individual pages. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization. Bearcat 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because top footballer are in too many categories. Pinoakcourt 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gross overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of possible combinations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shaundakulbara 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the most notable category of its type that could exist, and notable enough in its own right, but if it is kept it will be used as a precedent. Cloachland 16:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there would become thousands of categories, with 2-3 entries, so what is then the point? MURGH ^disc. 07:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams

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

The result of the debate was rename to: Category:Lists of Marvel characters by organization (with American spelling)--Wizardman 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams to Category:Lists of Marvel characters by organisation

Rename, for consistency with like categories. J Greb 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with American spelling - Since Marvel is headquartered in the USA, and most Marvel characters/teams are located in US, we should use the American spelling "Category:Lists of Marvel characters by organization" . See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (strong tie to specific region) --lquilter 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with American spelling - Ditto. Sorry Excalibur, you're the exception. Shaundakulbara 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum lquilter makes a valid point. Both Category:Lists of fictional characters by organisation and Category:Lists of DC characters by organisation need to be renamed to the American spelling. — J Greb 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note on a frustrating note, this CfD may as well be withdrawn. An un-helpfull user decided to "boldly" escew this process and change the relavent categories by edits instead of move/renames. — J Greb 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Looks like we'll be given a cahnce to see this through. — J Greb 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Julian Lennon

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another son of John Lennon. While he too should have an article, he does not see famous enough to have his own category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eponymous categories are best for very famous people with lots of aspects to them & consequently lots of articles dissecting them (see, e.g., George W. Bush); not simply "child of famous parent & semi-notable performer in own right" --lquilter 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary eponymous category. The subcategory is already correctly part of Category:Albums by artist, and the article links already appear in the main article Julian Lennon. Category can be safely deleted with no need to merge. Dugwiki 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient number of relevant articles to merit eponymous category; categories are not a badge of notability. --Xdamr^talk 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said in the Sean Lennon CfD. Just because hes the son of a famous person (John Lennon) doesn't mean he should have his own category also. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Shaundakulbara 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a completely useless category. Kolindigo 04:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ever notice when you've typed up a well-thought out and error-free post you somehow accidentally hit <ctrl><esc> while trying to hit tilde's to sign it? Anyways (ahem) while I disagree with some of the comments above about Julian Lennon not being notable in his own right, I do find that this is a category with little promise for being populated. If some editor in the future does find a way to shoehorn another article aside from Julian Lennon into it, it can always be recreated later. But for now, it would be arbitrary categorization of a single article into a category of same name. Maybe grounds for a new category articles that are the sole member of a category? Just kidding. Jerry lavoie 23:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sean Lennon

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the son of John Lennon. Even though he should have his own article, he simply does not seem famous enough to warrant having his own category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eponymous categories are best for very famous people with lots of aspects to them & consequently lots of articles dissecting them (see, e.g., George W. Bush); not simply "child of famous parent & semi-notable performer in own right" --lquilter 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasoning as the cfd for Category:Julian Lennon above. Dugwiki 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Category:Julian Lennon CFD. --Xdamr^talk 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because hes the son of a famous person, doesn't give him his own category also. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Shaundakulbara 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely useless category. Kolindigo 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely disagree with the rationale that the subject of an article has to be "notable enough" to warrant or deserve a category. Categories are ways of grouping together information for the person we sometimes forget about, THE READER, as a convenient way for the reader to access information about a subject in which he or she in interested. Categories are better than very long lists of see also's within the article, because they are less distracting to the casual reader who only wants basic information directly about the specific subject of the article they are reading. So, if there were several dozen (albeit barely notable) articles with a common theme, I would vote to keep a category for them. But as is the case with this article, if there is little or no hope of ever finding another article that would fit into this category, so I say delete it. We do not need categories with single articles populating them... it does nothing for the reader, and makes use of the category list for editors much harder when looking up categories to use on new articles.

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

Category:Businesses in Nashville

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Businesses in Nashville to Category:Companies based in Nashville

Rename to conform with convention of Category:Companies by city. choster 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per the convention Companies by city. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. →Ed Gl 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Peel Sessions artists

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify - This is a list of people who once performed on a radio show presented by John Peel. This is effectively categorization by performance, which is generally treated as overcategorization. The information is worth keeping in a list, but it should not be implemented as a category, as performance categories such as these contribute to category clutter. (This category was found in Elton John, tied for number 18 in Special:Mostcategories.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially the same as categorizing guest stars, which is also frowned upon. Dugwiki 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. --Xdamr^talk 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - appearance on a Peel session in the UK confers far more than can be conveyed by a mere list. It is both a stamp of quality and a recognisable accolade in itself. It's at least as important and useful a category as the Star Trek episodes cateogries and the like which proliferate on Wiki. StuartDouglas 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Each category should be debated on its own merits, but in any case you are not comparing like with like. One could make a strong case that the Star Trek episodes should be deleted, but while they exist they should be in a Star Trek episode category because that is the category type that matches the episodes' key characteristic, ie they are Star Trek episodes. The people in this category are not "Peel sessions musicians" before they are anything else. Piccadilly 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category by performance for this article would be a bad precedent. We would start having categories of "bands who have done covers for" and "actors who have appeared with"... I do think the information would be notable, so perhaps a section within the Peel Sessions article like ==Notable artists performances== would preserve this information. Jerry lavoie 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that a band recorded a Peel session is noteworthy and probably marks them out. It's not the same as being guest stars on other programmes etc. This is a large category that has been built up over a year or so and not in the same ball park as other categories on this page!!Tony Corsini 01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with StuartDouglas wholeheartedly in that "appearance on a Peel session in the UK confers far more than can be conveyed by a mere list", except I'd dare to say that the reputation conferred by such appearances actually has an international scope, particularly amongst those of us around the world who actually care about music. Doing a Peel session isn't even in the same ballpark as appearing on some TV show -- one didn't do a Peel session unless John Peel himself actually cared about your music, and for someone who cared as much about music as he did to care about YOUR band was like getting the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for your product or service. Whole careers were built upon an artist's landing a Peel session or two. To insinuate that this carries no real import is to show one's ignorance on the subject at hand. This category needs to stay put. (Krushsister 06:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - The same argument could also be made for a number of other shows, including American Bandstand, the Ed Sullivan Show, and MTV. The Peel Sessions are not unique in identifying upcoming artists. Perhaps appearing on the Peel Sessions in the United Kingdom is akin to appearing in a music video on MTV in the 1980's; both established and up-and-coming artists did it, and the activity could lead to fame for some performers who were not yet known in their home countries. Categorizing people by whether they appeared on MTV would be looked down upon; the Peel Sessions should be held to the same standards. It is also unclear that these Peel Sessions appearances are necessarily the career-defining moments for all of the artists in this category. I surveyed the first 20 people and bands that began with "D" in this category. This sample may be representative of the category as a whole, as it includes no personal biases (e.g. I have not chosen performers whom I know a priori are strongly associated with the Peel Sessions or whom I know a priori have very little to do with the Peel Sessions). Daft Punk, The Damned, Dead Can Dance, Deep Purple, Delta 5, The Detroit Cobras, Dexys Midnight Runners, The Dillinger Escape Plan, Dinosaur Jr, The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, Doctors of Madness, make no mention of the Peel Sessions aside from the category. The importance of the Peel Sessions for The Dawn Parade is unclear. Dick Dale mentions the Peel Sessions, but it looks like a show he appeared on well after he established himself as a musician. The career of The Datsuns, Dawn Of The Replicants, Dead or Alive (band), The Delgados, Department S (band), Jegsy Dodd, and Done Lying Down may have or did benefit from appearing on the show, although this is not always explicitly stated. This indicates that the Peel Sessions may have been important for the careers of ~35% of the performers in this category, but it appears to have been simply one of many guest performance or career-establishing performances for ~60% of the articles in this category. Moreover, I would also contend that the 35% of the artists possibly affected by appearing on the Peel Sessions did not establish themselves solely by appearing on that program but possibly by appearing at other noteworthy venues as well. Based on this analysis, I still advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete The statement that this is like getting an award from Good Housekeeping says all that needs to be said. Piccadilly 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You don't like comparisons with the Good Housekeeping seal of approval? Then think of a Peel Session in terms of winning an award. By securing John Peel's attention to where he'd want you to record a session for his program, it is akin to winning a highly acclaimed musical award. Much more of an accolade than the Grammys, a bigger deal than the Brits and the Junos combined, a John Peel session meant your music really meant something. Sure, you might not introduce an artist by saying (s)he/they were a Peel Session artist, but saying so in the process of describing said artist would be akin to saying, "Oh, Queen Elizabeth gave me an honor." Because it WAS an honor. And I am not going to stand by while a bunch of people who apparently don't know the first thing about this (and thus have no right saying this category deserves deletion) essentially belittle this high point in many a musician's life. (Krushsister 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This category contains 675 acts. No-one in history can have had a major role in that many careers and there is no way to tell from looking at the category in which cases Peel's role may really have mattered. Craig.Scott 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Peel was uniquely instrumental in the evolution of alternative music in the UK for decades. I don't think there's any analogy to his influence and the importance of the Peel Sessions. As such the category is higly informative and provides an interesting links between different artists. NickW 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No-one would start an article, "So and so was a Peel Sessions artist born in 19XX". Abberley2 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all and especially NickW and Krushsister. Comparisons with Good Housekeeping or appearing on a random TV show aren't relevant. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)#[reply]
- It was one of the keep voters that compared it with Good Housekeeping, showing his lack of understanding of what categories are used for. Osomec 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word "analogy".... But I guess you could just drop it in favor of the Brand Spanking New awards analogy I posited somewhere herein. (Krush~~sister~~brother, apparently... 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ultra strong delete This falls a vast magnitude short of the level of notability required to justify a category. If it was "John Peels 50 Greatest Bands" is should be deleted with prejudice and it isn't close to that. The keep votes are from strangers to this page, who appear to be voting on the basis of what matters to them, not with any understanding of the usual levels of notability required, or with any concern about maintaining a consistent category system. If people who don't take an interest in the category system are going to be allowed to obstruct maintenance of it on the basis of what is important to them the category system will just get worse and worse and we might as well all give up on it now. Osomec 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of secondary linkage is what the "what links here" button is for. If using that produces a list of similar length is renders the category unnecessary; if it does not, it shows that this attribute is not significant to justify a category. Wimstead 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - For many of the reasons quoted above by NickW, StuartDouglas and others. Appearing as a Peel Session artist was not like appearing on other Radio or TV shows - artists from around the world and not the just the UK, especially those who appeared in their initial stages in their careers owe a lot to their status as Peel Session artists. Out of interest, what's the difference between this type of category, and for example, those like players of certain football, rugby, american football, ice hockey teams? Steve-Ho 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There does seem to be an odd sports/American bias on Wikipedia when it comes to this kind of thing. Steve-Ho is quite right - from a UK perspective a Peel Session is an accolade like no others and from the POV of useful information, knowing that a band had recorded a Peel Session is useful and informative.
  - Someone needs to put what the above person said about "from the POV of useful information, knowing that a band had recorded a Peel Session is useful and informative" in bold. And I'm American and I know full well the import of a Peel Session. And it's not even like its scope was especially narrow; if such artists as (the synthfunk soulsters) Endgames and (the NuRo synthpoppers) Blancmange could be requested to do at least one Peel Session, then you know Mr. Peel was less interested in preserving the spirit of rockism as evidenced by all of the trad rock-worshipping American music press people, and more interested in presenting things that were exciting and revolutionary and fresh. Once again, this category needs to stay put. (Krushsister 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Category:Non-league footballers

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most footballers will have played non-league football at some point, so this category could end up with thousands in it. There are much more specific categories around that categorise players better than this - by club, by nationality, by certain leagues etc. WikiGull 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as players who have only played non-league semi-professional football will not satisfy WP:BIO. Those that have gone onto a full professional career and are thus eligible for inclusion in WP are notable primarily because of that, so this category serves little useful purpose. Qwghlm 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (though it is not true that most [notable] footballers have played non-league football). Pinoakcourt 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most non-league players don't pass WP:BIO, so why have a category for it. Kingjamie 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rescope to Category:Current non-league footballers (and note capitalisation change, too). A category for former prominent players now in the lower reaches of the football pyramid may well be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a pretty pointless category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename and rescope as suggested by Grutness The only NL players now listed are supposed to have played at a higher level so are therefore significant enough to have a category. Ram4eva 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the comments of Qwghlm and Mikedk9109. If non-league players fail WP:BIO, I see no point in this category. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all league footballers would fit the category, and the people who would fit the category who were not leagers as well, would probably not be notable. Jerry lavoie 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Owned item images

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I admit that I am unsure if this category violates any policy. It is not misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, in need of being merged, or POV. It is a category originally filled with the image tag Template:Owned_item, which is now deleted as being deemed unnecessary, too generic, and largely unused (see tfd). The six images which were tagged with this template now have the substituted version. The category is no longer needed, should be deleted, and the images delinked from the category. Iamunknown 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty category and no use of it. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This one is a no-brainer. No need to drag out a discussion here. (See WP:BURO.) Jerry lavoie 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Niagara Falls

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Rename to Category:People from Niagara Falls, New York to avoid confusion with Category:People from Niagara Falls, Ontario (which is in fact a more populated city) Mayumashu 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom, and to avoid confusion. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggsted Ulysses Zagreb 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename. Seems like another no-brainer. I can't imagine anyone aguing contrary to this proposal. Jerry lavoie 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vietnam People's Navy ships

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Naval ships of Vietnam, convention of Category:Naval ships by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per the convention Naval ships by country. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Abberley2 10:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Universities in Jordan

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

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Universities and colleges in Jordan, convention of Category:Universities and colleges by country, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per the convention Universities and colleges by country. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose There is no such convention. On the contrary there are many separate categories for universities by country because in almost every country in the world except the United States universities and colleges are different things. Cloachland 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There should be separate categories for universities. Osomec 14:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Electric Supply Companies of Pakistan

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Power companies of Pakistan, convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per the convention of Power companies by country. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Activists

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

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the parent category of a wider activism categorization scheme. Rather than nominate every sub-cat, I'm nominating the parent to try to get a consensus generated on the overall activist categorization scheme. It strikes me that there is an enormous problem with this categorization, that being that there is no way that any sort of objective definition of "activist" can be generated. The Activism lead article defines activism: "Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change." That's terribly vague, and the activist category defines for inclusion anyone who engages in activism. There is no reasonable objective way to determine if someone is an activist or not. Ronald Reagan spoke out against the Briggs Initiative; should Reagan be categorized as a gay rights activist? All sorts of celebrities have lent their names and images to a variety of causes, everything from AIDS to animal rights to Katrina relief; should they all be categorized as activists? Is someone who donates money to an activist organization herself an activist? With no objective threshold as to what makes one an activist, potentially any public statement made by any public figure qualifies them for an "activist" category of one sort or another. I don't think there's any way that this category can avoid fatal POV issues so I think it has to be deleted. Otto4711 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are proposing to delete the entire tree & all the subcats, then you really need to place notices on all the relevant subcats. This is an extensive cat tree with a lot of work put into it for a long time (not by me). --lquilter 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is useful categorization information. For example, someone doing research on the history of peace activism would find a “Peace activists” category immensely helpful. As to what is an activist—someone who has engaged in “action to bring about social or political change... in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.” So, someone who advocates for peace would be a “peace activist”, but someone who argues against peace (or for war) would not—they would be a “war activist” or “anti-peace activist”. If we combine that with the general Wikipedia direction of not categorizing biographical articles on the basis of minor aspects of a person’s life, the categories should remain largely relevant. —GrantNeufeld 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is someone who supported U.S. military action in Afganistan but opposed it in Iraq a "peace activist" or an "anti-peace activist" or both? Otto4711 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mere support or opposition would not qualify for activism, but if they were an anti-Iraq war activist then they would get a specific category for that. See Category:Anti-war explaining that there are categories for activists against specific wars, and the general category for activists opposed to all wars. The distinction you bring up is important, but it seems to be reflected and accurately maintained in the existing category structure. --lquilter 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This parallels the hotly debated category:Terrorists, which always passes muster here. Rather than name it "People whose violent actions have been labeled as terrorism," we live with the slight ambiguity and characterize people by what their actions dictate. The same is true with "Activists." These people are known for their activism. Yes, there can be debates about what constitutes activism, and people who fall into those debates might be booted from the category. But there is no debate about the activism of Phyllis Schlafly or the Chicago Seven or many others, and this category is where they belong.--Mike Selinker 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it's a line-drawing exercise on a per-article basis, but so is every category. And every occupation that humans engage in -- lawyering, writing, and so on -- requires these kinds of distinctions. (It would have been good to engage these questions on Category talk:Activists where I raised them before submitting the whole cat tree for deletion.) --lquilter 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the discussion and it appeared to have been abandoned close to a month ago. Otto4711 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Where's the rush? --lquilter 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The line drawing exercise that this category has a problem - labelling someone as an 'activist' is a black and white exercise whereas in reality it is a very grey area. Why not do things in a method such as 'supporters of X organisation' and then add that cat to one that is relevant (such as 'Supporters of PETA' and add it to 'Animal liberation movement')? This would eliminate 99% of the potential issues and we would have a well structured hierarchy. -Localzuk^(talk) 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good alternatve. Whatever line drawing problems there are with "activists," at least it requires action and involvement to some extent. "Supporters" is far more trivial and wishy washy, as you can "support" any number of things without having to leave your couch. Compounding that overinclusiveness is the fact that there are far too many organizations, both generally and for specific issues or causes. Biography articles would simply be swamped under "Sierra Club supporters," "World Wildlife Fund supporters," "PETA supporters," "Greenpeace supporters," "ACLU supporters"... So I'm going to say keep, finding "activists" imperfect but better than any of the alternatives. Postdlf 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided the articles themselves have notable, verifiable references to the person being an "activist", I don't see a problem with categorizing them that way. Articles in which there are no verifiable references to the person as an activist should be removed from the category (or subcategory by specific activism area). Dugwiki 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it can be overused, but some form of activism is the main defining characteristic of many notable people. Pinoakcourt 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that if the articles have reliable references, then they can be categorized this way. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are activists, and some people are defined by it, but the categories should be policed strictly. Xiner (talk, email) 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As an aside, to avoid POV problems, the activist stub categories explicitly indicate that they are for both those for and against the topic on a given issue, thus making for example both George Lincoln Rockwell and Martin Luther King, Jr. minority rights activists. Extending the idea upstream to the permanent cats might be useful to do the same there. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is useful and inclusion of individual articles should be discussed on their talk pages. User:Dimadick
Delete - too general to be useful. This includes everyone from Daryl Hannah to Rosa Parks to Saint Peter. Shaundakulbara 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people are in subcategories and more subcategories can be created. AshbyJnr 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AshbyJnr 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be good if the people who think this is a keeper (myself included) would join in on the discussion on Category talk:Activists about how to set out parameters, how to handle tricky decisions, etc. Or perhaps it would be even better if the deleters would join in & put some thoughts into how to address the potential problems. --lquilter 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it seems very likely that a typical reader who searches for an activist article would be interested in this category, and so it provides benefit to the user. It would also be a catch-all category to prevent overcategorization of articles in small subcats like activists for xxxxx. Jerry lavoie 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:New College of Florida Alumnae/i

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

The result of the debate was rename. 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:New College of Florida Alumnae/i to Category:New College of Florida alumni

Rename, per capitalisation policy and naming convention of category:Alumni by university in the United States. Piccadilly 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per conventions of Category:Alumni by university in the United States -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per ProveIt. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Such subgrouping can be easily achieved by using sections on the category page. Jerry lavoie 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hong Kong Fire Services Department

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

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category contains four articles, three of which are stubs relating to the Hong Kong Fire Services Department. This category is almost too narrow and will not see the type of expansion in the number of articles which categories should have. Aside from the three stubs, the only article of note is the HK Fire Services Department article itself, which can easily fit into Category:Fire departments of Asia. Daysleeper47 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the only way to neatly fit all articles into the category:Fire services hierarchy. Piccadilly 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks like part of a hierarchy of fire departments by nation. It should be kept on that basis. Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hong Kong is not a nation and at this time, with the exception of the United States and UK, there are not enough Fire Service articles for any country to warrant a seperate category, including, in my opinion, this one. --Daysleeper47 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hong Kong has a category tree that resembles other countries' category trees. If this is not appropriate (e.g. if Hong Kong should be considered a part of China), then perhaps the category should be renamed Category:Fire departments of China. Regardless, the category should be kept, as it is part of a larger scheme. Dr. Submillimeter 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Submillimeter. Pinoakcourt 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HK has membership in many international organizations and seemingly functions like a country. 70.51.11.102 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:New School University alumni

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The New School alumni to match The New School, which changed its name in 2005. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename To match the current name of the school. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:New School University

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The New School to match The New School which changed its name in 2005. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename If the school changed it's name, then the category should be changed also. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Various sportspeople

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on current readings of Wikipedia:Overcategorization.--T. Anthony 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge LGBT figure skaters, along with Category:Lesbian sportspeople, Category:Gay sportspeople and Category:Bisexual sportspeople into Category:LGBT sportspeople. Weak keep on the Politicians category but that pretty much an "I like it" vote and I would shed no tears if it were merged somewhere or deleted. Otto4711 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any merger into Category:LGBT sportspeople as there is no non-POV reason not to separate them out. Piccadilly 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How does putting someone in the Category:LGBT sportspeople create a POV? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Categories that involve the intersection of two otherwise independent facts should normally be deleted unless those facts create a significant notable impact for each other. For example, "politicians who were in professional sports" only makes sense as a category if the person's political career is somehow significantly influenced by his sports career, and that influence is mentioned in the article. Likewise, "LGBT figure skaters" only makes sense for skaters for whom being LGBT has a significant impact on their skating career. Since it seems very likely that most such intersections are random, I'd recommend deleting both these categories. Dugwiki 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: skaters for whom being LGBT has a significant impact on their skating career see Rudy Galindo and Brian Orser. And considering the stigma of coming out, I think every skater who comes out deals with a significat impact on their skating career. Awartha 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please only group categories that are strictly of the same type. These may have one thing in common, but they are different in many ways. Pinoakcourt 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dugwiki - completely irrelevant intersection. --Xdamr^talk 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicians who participated in professional sports; "participation" is too insignificant a note. --lquilter 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGBT figure skaters or merge into Category:LGBT sportspeople. Since people coming out in sports is relatively unusual, those who do are often notable for having come out as a sportsperson. --lquilter 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dugwiki. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT studies noticeboard and Deletion sorting. lquilter 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WP:LGBT, Delete LGBT figure skaters and merge them into LGBT sportspeople. I won't comment on the politicians one and seriously question grouping them together in this CfD. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew that as they are unrelated cases.--T. Anthony 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary intersection. >Radiant< 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:LGBT figure skaters as sexuality does not affect skating skills. AshbyJnr 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not overcharacterization. Awartha 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGBT figure skaters. I also don't see a reason why not break Category:LGBT sportspeople down by sport. We break sportspeople down by nationality, instead of just lumping them all together. Kolindigo 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:LGBT figure skaters, Category:LGBT sportspeople and any other subcategories it has as irrelevant intersections that promote a POV. Cloachland 16:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what POV is that? Be specific. Otto4711 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into LGBT sportspeople. Raystorm 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fooian actors

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on current readings of Wikipedia:Overcategorization.--T. Anthony 12:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These are no different from other by nationality subcategorisations. Piccadilly 14:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply, the issue isn't that these are "national" categories. It's that they are interesecting two otherwise independent professions (eg actor + politician). Is there a reason that it's not sufficient to simply label such a person using the two categories "Actor" and "Politician"? Why do you need to create a third category, "Actor/Politician" to represent the combination? Dugwiki 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all on the basis of being categorized by two professions, same reason athlete-actors was recently deleted. Otto4711 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an arbitary selective nomination. If the point being made is that the parents such category:Actor-singers etc should be deleted, then why have they not been nominated? Pinoakcourt 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had made an oversite there. If you want to nominate the parent category feel free to do so.--T. Anthony 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant why any other category was or wasn't nominated. Otto4711 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Whats the point of caegorizing by two professions? —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the actor-singer cats with a possible rename to musical actors or since actors who have been in stage or screen musicals is a notable subgrouping of actors.
Delete the actor-politician cats. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overly narrow intersection. >Radiant< 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clear overcategorization. — coelacan talk — 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actor-singer categories. The combination of singing and dancing is not two separate occupations, but a specific skill set that is essential for many roles. AshbyJnr 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "singer-dancer" category under consideration. Regardless, the "actor-singer" category does not target only those who sung as part of an acting role, which Category:American musical theatre actors actually does target quite well. Postdlf 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the actor-singer cateogories per AshbyJnr, possibly under another name. Wilchett 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actor politician for sure. The fact that Jaya Bachchan, Govinda, Dev Anand, etc have been the brunt of notable jokes theroughout India (I can attest to big networks and big name comedians) makes actor politician a viable category.Baka man 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actor-singers as career-specific, delete the politicians category as random trivia. Cloachland 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as trivia. I don't see how "actor-singer" is even "career-specific," as it doesn't necessarily mean that someone sung as part of an acting role any more than "actor-politician" means someone acted in political office. It just means someone who was an actor at any time who was also a singer at any time. There really is no end to these wacky, double-occupation combos: athlete-politicians, singer-athletes, physician-politicians...there are better ways for us to amuse ourselves. Make a damn list. Postdlf 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to rein in intersection categories. It is certainly possible to create lists to replace multiple intersections that are deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 22:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fooian scientists

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on current readings of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. It's true that there are cases where race or sexual orientation might be relevant to a scientific career's progress, but it's not always true and categories apparently can't pick or choose. The intersections are not notable, by current standards.--T. Anthony 12:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with you that the intersections are not notable today (they are), categories have to reflect history as well as today. --lquilter 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are scientists whose ethincity/sexual preference impacts their work These categories should only contain scientists whose ethnicity or sexual preference actually has a notable, significant impact on their scientific work as described in their article. If no such articles exist, then delete the categories. Dugwiki 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e.g., Margaret Mead, Alan Turing, George Washington Carver, Ben Barres, Simon LeVay. (I'm sure you can't mean that they must study same-sex behavior from a scientific perspective, because that would be a confusion of two different topics: subject of research, and effect of a biographical identity on one's career.) --lquilter 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These three categories should not be lumped together as one might easily take a different opinion on the first from the other two. Pinoakcourt 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pinoakcourt. These three don't belong together.Listify If anything is significant about these people's intersections, there should be an explanation, which is not possible in a category. Xiner (talk, email) 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three are categories of scientists by things that aren't directly related to their career. In addition this isn't going to stop say Alan Turing from being in both gay and scientist categories. Just like Robert Boyle and Michael Faraday are still in both Christian categories and scientist categories.--T. Anthony 12:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true to say that sexuality and race do not directly impact scientists' careers. Sexuality can impact a scientists' career as it did with LeVay in turning his interest toward particular topics. It affected Turing's career by cutting it short. Examples like these are all that are needed to point out that these are not irrelevant intersections and can be notable and significant. (There's a broader argument to be made about how broadly to apply those categories by pointing out how sexuality affects, positively and negatively, practice in scientific careers. But that's about breadth of application of the category, not existence of the categories.) Race & ethnicity have similar potential examples, and I would like to point out further the existence of historically black colleges as one of the places where black scientists have practiced; founding these colleges or being denied permission to practice elsewhere. Read the biography of any black scientist who worked prior to the 1970s and you will see the profound impact that their race had on their scientific career. --lquilter 14:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it often can or may affect careers, but it does not necessarily do so in all cases. Being Catholic caused some scientists to be refused entry in certain Universities, a point I think I made when that was deleted, but as it's not relevant in all cases it was deleted. The current concensus seems to be that unless the intersection is always relevant it will not be properly used as categories are inherently all-inclusive. Therefore this won't limit to black scientists from pre-1970 or LGBT scientists from times or places it matters. I don't agree with the current concensus myself, I dislike it quite a good deal, but as long as it's there it should be applied fairly. Some could say race and sexuality are different by being inherent, but genetic condition intersections are not done either. There is no Category:Color blind scientists for example.--T. Anthony 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simply point out that religion is not always a defining attribute; lots of people belong to this or that church from birth but don't practice, never really believe, whatever. If you could limit the religion categories to those where the person clearly identifies with / believes in / practices a particular faith, it would be a different kind of category. Whereas, gender, race in the US, and sexuality are pretty much incredibly defining identities for everyone. (And you can look at statistics to see that each of these identities affects various occupations.) --lquilter 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think we should be talking this all through at length on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality -- and not deleting any more of these categories until the issues can be sounded out, thoroughly, there, without drowning things here. --lquilter 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three, since sexuality can have a significant impact on people's careers in science (ask a queer scientist; note the influence of marriage on scientific careers); and race in America is a very significant impactor on African-American people in the sciences -- as evidenced by statistics and the dearth of African American scientists. --lquilter 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lquilter put it perfect. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT studies noticeboard and Deletion sorting. lquilter 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the CSB talk. lquilter 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary intersection. >Radiant< 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see both sides of this discussion, but I'm split in my opinion because current categorization practice has competing objectives. On one side there are those that want to subcategorize people into categories by profession. On the other hand, there are those (including myself) that would don't think that many of these intersections are particularly meaningful. The agreed guidelines talk about having to be able to write an article about the subject. I don't think there is all that much to say about being an LGBT scientist. However, it is very significant that some of the scientists are LGBT (Alan Turing for example) or African-American, etc... So the alternatives are to keep the larger parent categories populated or allow the intersections. German Wikipedia keeps the parents fully populated and limits the intersections, but that hasn't been the practice at English Wikipedia. Without a consensus to keep these larger categories populated (which would be my preference), I find it hard to advocate removing the subcategories. Eventually, this category will be deleted when Wikipedia:Category intersection is implemented (I hope!) --Samuel Wantman 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may not be a consensus, in general, to populate larger parent categories instead (re Samual Wantman's points). But that need not stop us from considering these particular categories on their merits or overcategorization. Consider for a moment a parallel (thankfully uncreated) categorization scheme: "LGBT accountants", "Asian American accountants", "African American accountants". Surely there are many such people. But the category overlap is itself misleading. There is no "LGBT way to do accounting", any more than there is an "LGBT way to do science", or an "Asian American way to do science", or an "African American way to do science". These people should all be upmerged to their two respective parent categories. These category intersections are completely misleading, as they imply the existence of distinct racially-segregated or sexually-segregated schools of scientific thought. (Aside to T. Anthony: thank you for making the nominations I forgot to pursue. I would suggest that because some people simply balk at broad multiple-nomiations, it would have been easier to nominate the three at the same time but separately; it's easier to feel confident about voting delete for each when not distracted by apparent unrelatedness. But in this case, I am quite happy to say delete all three.) — coelacan talk — 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't particularly interested in "making things easier." It's apparently been ruled that the identities of scientists are now irrelevant. If that's so then there's no reason to do "one at a time" as that'll just end up looking like certain identities are favored. Although I didn't put Category:Jewish scientists in because I feared I'd get called Anti-Semitic or it'd make it more clearly a WP:POINT violation.--T. Anthony 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think anyone looking at African American accountants would be confused into thinking those were people who practiced African American accountancy. I'm all in favor of eliminating grammatical ambiguity whenever there is any actual ambiguity, but that ambiguity is simply theoretical. --lquilter 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I truly wish I could agree with you. Yet, in the CFD for "Mathematicians by religion", Bakaman tried to claim to me that there really was such a thing as "Hindu Mathematics". I have abandoned hope that explicitly stated category intersections will be interpreted sensibly, as least for disciplines such as science and mathematics, which are so esoteric to so many people that they can imagine that these things too would divide along social boundaries. I have to say that it's much more enticing to me for us to simply use both parent categories. If it's important to have one repository of African American scientists, for example, this should be handled as a list instead, where the article can make painfully clear that there is no "African American science", and wait for the inevitable edit warring from Nation of Islam, who explicitly claim otherwise. With a category we do not have the luxury of speaking so sensibly. — coelacan talk — 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematics is probably a bit of a special topic, because of the history of mathematics, and it can get a bit ... stylistic. That's neither here nor there, though. I suspect that the problem is not simply that you (and others who cite this concern) are worried about ambiguity, because a rename would solve that. So if the real concern is simply the existence of identity intersection categories then that's a different issue. I think the real issue there is that we probably all agree that this situations would be best resolved with the category intersections (and when are those supposed to be ready, anyway?) and the question is, what to do with these categories until the intersections come along? For me, I think that they are helpful -- indispensable, I'd like to say -- to people studying the history & sociology of the subject fields. On the negative side, I think keeping them to a reasonably restricted set of significant and studied identity categories doesn't add too much category pollution. So, I would leave these identity intersection categories in the system until category intersections come along. With a couple of restrictions: My own take would be to include race/ethnicity, nationality, gender,sexuality, and occupation. T. Anthony makes a strong case for including religion, which I think has some other issues.--lquilter 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I have no problem with lists, where the ambiguity can be resolved. There really are people who believe in "Black Science". I'm not kidding, this is one of the founding beliefs of the Nation of Islam (including but not limited to the mythology of Yakub). There's no question that ambiguity exists. So a list can handle that and make the explanation clear, while a category cannot. If this is all listified, then there's no loss of information for people researching the sensible related topics. In fact a list would be even better for those researchers than a category, because the list can include short details on each person in the list. The lists, of course, would still have to show some kind of notable relation that wasn't WP:OR, in order to survive, so I don't think a list of scientists by religion is going to fly as anything but completely irrelevent. But lists of people who had to overcome historical discrimination in the scientific community? Maybe. The categories provides very little help in this direction, however. — coelacan talk — 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your issue is ambiguity, please propose a rename. Ambiguity is not resolved by deleting categories; it's resolved by using clear category names or disambiguating statements at the top of the category. As I've said, I don't think "LGBT scientists" is ambiguous, but would be happy to write a statement at the top of the cateogry that explained that these are not scientists who necessarily research into same-sex behavior, and link to that field. And the phrases "African American" and "Asian American" are widely understood to be ethnic identities. I've never heard them used as an adjectival form of a field of study, except for the field of study that studies the ethnic identity. They are used throughout wikipedia as ethnic identities. ... I like lists in many instances, but here a list would have to be very long: It would basically have to include all scientists of color who practiced in the US prior to, say, 1970. And your critiera "had to overcome historical discrimination" would result in an awful lot of redundant annotation: "Went to school in the Jim Crow south" a million times, for instance. --lquilter 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any renaming could do it. I can't think of one. The problem is that science is esoteric, and it's easy for outsiders to imagine that it might have conflicting strains that break along social boundaries. Making a point of these boundaries by category compounds the problem. Anyway, I'm not saying that we have to annotate everything in a list, just that a list allows this where useful. — coelacan talk — 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I would point out that there is a significant body of literature about African American scientists ; encyclopedias and biographical directories of African American scientists, studies of African Americans in the sciences, and so on. (See e.g., Black Stars Sullivan & Haskins; Distinguished African American Scientists of the 20th Century; African American Inventors; and so on -- these are all titles I just pulled up from a quick amazon.com search, and I had at least a dozen similar other titles in a science library that I ran, ten years ago. This is basically the classic wikipedia intersection category which should and will at some point have an article for the category. I can't believe people are really taking T. Anthony's "making a point" proposal seriously and that people would really consider that "African American scientists" is not notable. --lquilter 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~T. Anthony is not just "making a point". I specifically asked T. Anthony to help me with this deletion a couple of weeks ago, and I forgot to follow through. Anyway,~~ I found the category intersection tool: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php That might be useful to place on the parent category pages for researchers. It's more effective anyway, since it catches intersections that haven't yet been explicitly noted with the categories under CFD here today. — coelacan talk — 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck do you use that, I tried but got nowhere, or find it on one's own?--T. Anthony 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For African American scientists, this is not just an "intersection"; it is a well-studied biographical topic. --lquilter 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck part of the above comment, as I'd prefer to simply argue this one as though I had been the one who did the nomination, T. Anthony's intentions aside. — coelacan talk — 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these combinations are career defining. Cloachland 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether the combination or category is career-defining; not all categories are career-defining, nor are all occupational intersection categories career-defining, nor are all career-defining things categories. The question is whether it is defining enough to the individual to be an appropriate category for that article; whether it works as a category (captures something important and doesn't pose problems of exclusion/inclusion); and whether it is useful as a subcategory (look to the category trees). --lquilter 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I honestly wonder how many people weighing in on this have looked at both category trees of an intersection-- for instance, not just Category:Scientists, but Category:African Americans. To understand the role of a category you need to examine how it's being used in all the applied & relevant cat trees. Nobody arguing delete seems to have addressed this at all: they direct their arguments only towards science ("race has no impact on their science" (demonstrably false)), without considering the ethnicity category at all. Here, the occupational subgroups within the ethnicity categories are invaluable for researchers. It's very strange. --lquilter 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps where a subdivision makes sense for one, but not all of the relevant category trees, it would be better handled by a list article placed within the one tree rather than a subcategory that crosses all of them. Postdlf 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you thinking of the NYC law schools? I think your proposal might work in some of these identity intersections like these (but probably not for African American scientists because too many of them), but I'm not sure it would work for all taxonomies -- I think part of the NYC schools thing was to clean up the NYC schools category. Hmm. Musing. --lquilter 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Black and LGBT people have suffered from discrimination in the sciences. The issue of discrimination in science is important and should be described in one or more articles that are interlinked with articles on individual scientists. However, the category does little to promote awareness of the issue or even explain the issue. Instead, the category contributes to category clutter. Hence, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good point too. There may be very good potential article topics that the categories are overshadowing. I should point out that taking this into consideration, as well as lquilter's statement above ("For African American scientists, this is not just an "intersection"; it is a well-studied biographical topic.") my !vote should be considered delete and optionally listify. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many things work better as lists than as categories. Maybe these do too, although I continue to feel that gender, ethnicity, & sexuality are very significant identifiers that are broadly applicable. But more importantly, even if the unhappy moderator faced with closing this discussion is able to derive some outcome for each of the categories -- there is obviously no consensus on the issue as a whole, from my read of the various CFDs over the last 6 weeks, which go one way for one, and another way for another, and with no consistent rationale across them. I really would like to suggest that more lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is in order, because whether these go or stay as categories, the most important thing about an organizational scheme is that it be consistent and comprehensive -- and identity-based categories are neither at the moment. --lquilter 05:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete. I think the information is valuable if discussed, and agree with most people's comments above, both pro and con. We need to make clearer distinctions between what makes good categories and what makes good lists. I think these intersections would make good lists or articles which could be linked from the text of each article or from "See also" sections. -- Samuel Wantman 09:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept a list as workable for LGBT scientists, but for African American scientists, I think it's one of the instances in which a category should also exist -- because frankly there are a lot of African American scientists, but they faced significant discrimination prior to the most recent decades, and it significantly shaped their careers. The options of every one of them were limited in educational and occupational choices by Jim Crow laws. And even today, African Americans are a seriously underrepresented minority in the sciences. Again, this subject has been repeatedly studied, and lists and articles are certainly needed in wikipedia; but it's also a significantly and defining identity attribute. (I'm withholding comment on Asian American scientists: the same arguments are relevant but they spin out differently in ways that might make categories less manageable.) --lquilter 15:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at these specific categories from the point of view of someone who is concerned about overall categorization policy. For the last year or so, we have been trying to use a criteria for inclusion that says that each category must be useful, studied and worthy of an article about the topic. The problem, as I see it, is that it has been very difficult to draw a line between which intersections are acceptable, and which are not. Wherever we draw this line there will be contentious disagreements about keeping some categories and deleting others. The deleted ones will be frequently recreated and the kept ones will be repeatedly nominated for deletion. I think it is high time that we consider these categories by class and not individually. So when I consider classes of subcategories like the intersection ones nominated here -- some subcategories exist because they meet the criteria for being useful, studied and article worthy while others do not -- I am moving toward the position that we should remove the entire class and replace them with lists. Lists are superior to categories for any topic in which inclusion needs to be explained. Making the entire class of categories into lists would hopefully lower the level of debate and contentiousness on these CfD pages. Also, when considering intersections, I think the long term trend will be to remove all of them as we wait for category intersection to be implemented. -- Samuel Wantman 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List-articles instead of categories seems like a reasonable approach for identity-occupation intersection categories in some instances, and are flexible in terms of adapting to historical & social shifts. For instance, "female biologists" is a notable & defining intersection up through 1900 or so, unquestionably, everywhere in the world; arguably also relevant through around 1950 in the US & Europe; and people will argue about it for the last 60 years as women have faced declining (but still significant) discrimination in the field. And yes, it's good to get rid of redundant categorization like "African Americans", "Scientists", and "African American scientists", each of which is applicable and appropriate for George Washington Carver. ... But I'm still troubled by some aspects of this approach. I might be less troubled when category intersection is implemented, but it will depend on how it's implemented. If, for instance, we truly can't search through two large categories ("scientists" and "women"; or "scientists" and "African americans") then we won't be able to pull out relevant & supporting sets of articles that would fit within a topic of encyclopedic interest. Moreover, implementation of category intersection would really require robust and comprehensive categorization of basic biographical features, like ethnicity, gender, historical era, and so on; and we don't currently have that in wikipedia. Nor should we, necessarily. ... Still musing ...--lquilter 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep African American per lquilter, Weak delete LGBT and Asian American, because I believe these last two would only contribute to category clutter per Dr. Submillimeter. Raystorm 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ivy Plus Group

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and inherently POV. Underlying article (Ivy Plus Group) has been prod'ded with no opposition so far. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a generic sense of "Ivy plus" and there are a few specific "Ivy Plus" groupings. The Ivy-Plus Group (note hyphen) consists of the eight members of the Ivy League plus MIT and Stanford University. The Ivy Plus admissions/financial aid court case involved the Ivies and MIT. In faculty and teaching Ivy Plus means the Ivies plus MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Chicago. But the Ivy Plus academic computing consortium, Ivy Plus library group, Ivy Plus human resources group, Ivy Plus travel group, and so on include different institutions in the plus. And then there's the Ivy Plus Society, an independent alumni social club with a rather looser definition of "plus" to throw off your Google tests :-). If this category is for "Ivy-Plus" I'd say it's unnecessary overcategorization. If it's for the general sense of "the Ivy League and their 'peer institutions'" it's an irredeemable magnet for boosterism.-choster 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems more suitable for an article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster Hawkestone 14:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Shaundakulbara 12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, this is simliar to the "New Ivies" ranking. See discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Ivies. The New Ivies page has been deleted several times due to re-creation. Danski14 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Web Cartoonist's Choice Award winners

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards was deleted for failing to reach notability. bogdan 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no point in having a category for a non-notable award. - Francis Tyers · 09:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the article was kept, it's questionable whether the category would be kept. It's usually preferable to use a list article instead of categories to list award winners as discussed in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners. Dugwiki 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary awards category since it will not be a defining attribute of most, or any, people. (I might have voted to keep the award if I'd known about the AFD, but the category needs to go). --lquilter 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki. Doczilla 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you don't want award categories, then you shouldn't have Category:Award winners. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is an effort afoot to clean up Category:Award winners and develop some consensus on that larger category. --lquilter 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- An admin went and deleted the lists, so we need to make up our minds: category or lists? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Shaundakulbara 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To keep it around would be confusing and insincere.—MURGH ^disc. 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A cluttersome category; also there's no point in having a category for a nonnotable award. Sandstein 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Postpone Decision: WCCA was deleted by an overzealous admin who technicaly went against concensus and policies. In addition, the deletion is being reviewed. (Justyn 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Category:PETA supporters

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vague inclusion criteria and will likely be trivia. What level of involvement or advocacy is necessary for someone to qualify as a "supporter"? "Activist" was determined too vague in this context (see CFD); "supporter" is even more so. And how many organizations would end up having their own "X supporters" category? One could easily see articles swamped under "Sierra Club supporters," "ACLU supporters"... Postdlf 07:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I'm not sure that the lack of consensus on the Category:Animal rights activists is accurately characterized as "determined too vague". Some people thought it was too vague; others (including myself) thought it was just fine & should have been recreated. ... At any rate there is extensive backstory discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights#Animal rights subcats for more info. --lquilter 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the CFD; at any rate, I think we can agree that "PETA supporters" is much more problematic than "Animal rights activists." Postdlf 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being likely to accrue people based on one throw away comment about their sympathy for the organisation. However Category:Animal rights activists should most certainly exist. Piccadilly 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if you assume there is an objective way to determine if someone is a "supporter", that sounds like it's better suited to a list article. Imagine, for example, if every politicial or philisophical or activist organization had its own category called "Fill-in-the-blank supporters". Individual people can support any number of these organziations, and would therefore be subject to having a unique category in their article per organization or cause they support. You'd get for example "PETA supporters", "Democratic party supporters", "UN supporters", "UNICEF supporters", "ASPCA supporters", and so on down the line. It would be a potential deluge of categories per celebrity article. Dugwiki 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has been noted already, there is no possible objective standard to determining whether someone is a "supporter" or not. Is a person who opposes wearing fur a "PETA supporter" because she agrees with PETA on that one issue? Otto4711 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think you could determine who is a supporter or not. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of specific organizations is nearly limitless. Animal rights activist should be (re)created, for the exact opposite reason, that the catgory will not necessitate the creation of new categories. Huangdi 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. Doczilla 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Shaundakulbara 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invites categorization of people for their non-notable attributes. ie: If a person who is famous for widdling widgets happens to support PETA, classifying them into this category would be hard to prevent, but certainly arbitrary. The resulting category list of articles would be in no way related, thereby providing no benefit to the reader. Jerry lavoie 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Muslim actors

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussions of Sep 10th, Dec 27th, and Jan 12th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on coincidence rather than a categorically meaningful relationship. Postdlf 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions. Pinoakcourt 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Shaundakulbara 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. There is no "Muslim way to do theatre". — coelacan talk — 12:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the likely intended meaning of this category, although I take Coelacan's point made elsewhere that there is a potential ambiguity. For the record, therefore, this argument only addresses "delete as overcategorization" for the meaning of "Muslim way to do theatre", but does not address the likelier and more obvious meaning of "Muslims who act". --lquilter 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Category:Actors by religion.Baka man 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (same logic as above) invites categorization of people for their non-notable attributes. ie: If a person who is famous for acting happens to be a Muslim, classifying them into this category would be hard to prevent, but certainly arbitrary. The resulting category list of articles would be in no way related, thereby providing no benefit to the reader. Jerry lavoie 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not worthwhile. Piccadilly 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Biographies

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Biographies to Category:Biography books or similar.

There's a constant need to clean up this category, because people misunderstand it; it's meant to be a category for articles about biographical books, but people continually file articles about people in here (because the articles themselves are "biographies", *sigh*) Accordingly, I'd like to propose that we rename it to something a bit less open to misinterpretation. Bearcat 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be tempted to keep it. "Biography books" sounds pretty clumsy to me and while I'm sure the category needs regular cleanup, I'm sure that the cat-redirect from "biographies" to "biography books" will need cleanup for the very same reasons. Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to alternative Biographical books (perhaps also clumsy/contrived) or Biographies (books)...? David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to alternative Biographical books gets my vote the proposed name is too clumsy - however I doo see the problem and the need for change. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid confusion, no preference amongst suggestions. ~ Bigr Tex 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Biographies (books) out of a preference for disambiguation over the use of awkward terms. Pinoakcourt 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Biographical books. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to Category:Biographies (books) per Pinoakcourt & David Kernow's suggestions; the books are called biographies & putting books in parens disambiguates it nicely. "Biographical books" is a little confusing, simply because the term "biographies" is overwhelmingly used to describe those items. --lquilter 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to Category:Biographies (books) as above. Sumahoy 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Biographical books Ulysses Zagreb 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Biographies (books), which uses the natural term and disambiguates it as necessary, which is the usual wikipedia approach to disambiguation. Hawkestone 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Biographies (books) per numerous previous suggestions. Note that Category:Biographies is still going to have to be patrolled regularly since people will no doubt continue to add articles to it. Otto4711 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't you mean Category:Biographies (books) will need patroling once renamed/created to ensure it only contains "books". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Biographies (books), which is hardly going to be used for biographical articles by accident. Cloachland 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but not to Biographies (books)... this seems to imply that there is a Biographies category, which this proposal would eliminate. I prefer Biographical Publications, which would also include written media not nesessarily books (biography magazines, etc, which the reader would be interested in.) Jerry lavoie 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Biographies (books). Any in this field that is not a book belongs in category:Biography. Piccadilly 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Japanese ministers

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Japanese ministers to Category:Government ministers of Japan

Rename, in line with categories for other countries and to disambiguate from "religious ministers". Piccadilly 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per other cats like this one. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Ulysses Zagreb 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RenameUser:Foxyjiji I think you should rename to Japanese Ministries because the list of ministers gets out of date too quickly. Ministers change 100 times more often than ministries. For example right now Nikai is listed as a minister although he is not (many other examples exist). If people want to know the current minister in a particular ministry they should just click on the Japanese Ministries page.
- Wikipedia categories usually cover past and present, livnig and dead, and this one is no different from all the others. Cloachland 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gaming conventions

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. >Radiant< 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gaming conventions to Category:Game conventions

Rename. The current name is ambiguous since there are at least two types of gaming conventions and this name only covers one. Another possible choice is Category:Gaming conventions (games) but gamer is used in the introduction explaining the purpose of this category. Category:Games is the parent, so maybe using games as the dab would be better. Vegaswikian 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the proposal from Category:Gaming conventions (gamer) based on the comments below. Vegaswikian 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename - Gaming Conventions (gamer) doesn't really make it less ambiguous, it just makes it longer and essentially repeats the first word. If it was something like (roleplaying) or along those lines, it would make more sense. --Colage 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are not opposed to a rename, just the proposed name? Vegaswikian 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, pretty much. Category is fine, content is fine, I just think the wording is clumsy. Problem is finding the proper wording for it, I can't think of anything off the top of my head. --Colage 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Roleplaying conventions should be a subcategory. Vegaswikian 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - This is the kind of category name that hurts my brain. No one will be able to guess what gaming or gamer is supposed to mean in this context. The word "gaming" needs an adjective. Dr. Submillimeter 11:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Game conventions. There's no parallel use in the casino industry for "game convention."--Mike Selinker 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support that suggestion. I'll modify the proposal with this version. Vegaswikian 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Conventions(Gaming) as Game conventions or Gaming conventions has a double meaning of both a large gathering and things which are standard among many games. Slavlin 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is Conventions (Gaming) different than Gaming Conventions? --Colage 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per Dr. Submillimeter. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would Category:Role playing conventions be OK? All of these conventions seem to be about role playing. (I suspect that I have overlooked some type of subtle point about these conventions. The term "role playing" may be inappropriate, but I am uncertain.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would match the proposed new name for Category:Australian Gaming conventions listed below. Vegaswikian 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the listed conventions already in the category focus on board, card, or even video games, but most have all sorts of game types. -- Parody 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Game conventions. Poking around I see a good mix of "Game Convention", "Games Convention", and "Gaming Convention" on the con websites. Any of them should work. -- Parody 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Does anyone else reading this discussion realize that "gaming" is a synonym for "gambling"? A related gambling category was renamed to use the word "gambling" because of this problem. This category should be renamed using "role playing" or something similar to indicate that it is not about gambling. Dr. Submillimeter 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I think we do. However, the gamers who attend game/games/gaming conventions don't call them anything else, and I think the Wikipedia should stick as close to established terms as possible. If that means using similar names and putting notes at the top saying "this (is/is not) about gambling, if you want the other kind of gaming go here" then that's what should happen. -- Parody 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose "Game player conventions". I like "game conventions" but a) game industry trade conventions could be included & that's not intent; and b) picky semantics: these aren't gatherings of games but gatherings of people playing games. "Game player conventions" hopefully still avoids the "gaming" euphemism for gambling (but place a disambiguation note on both the gambling & gaming cat pages anyway). Subcats (if needed) could break out conventions dedicated specifically to board, card, video, role playing, chess/checkers/go/etc, and live-action nonRPG games; and the general category could be used for multi-game cons. --lquilter 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a separate tree for Trade Shows, though in the non-gambling, non-video game industry there aren't very many trade shows that aren't considered gaming conventions. (One example is the GAMA Trade Show.) I have been wondering if/when there would be enough game type conventions listed for some sub-categories, though. -- Parody 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. If you read the comments, I think there is consensus for a rename. The issue is which name. Rather then close no consensus. Please consider closing as a rename and relist with a choice of the ones that seem to have the most support. Personally I can live with any one that does not include gaming. Category:Game player conventions could be the best choice, but with its late addition, not everyone may notice it. Vegaswikian 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a few days of mulling to come up with it! Only in wikipedia is three days a "late addition". <grin> --lquilter 00:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Game conventions" is a very common term in the game industry. "Game player conventions" is not.--Mike Selinker 02:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's unambiguous, and given that gamblers apparently also use the term "gamer/gaming/etc" there needs to be some way to distinguish. --lquilter 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compare to other types of gatherings: auto show not "automobile enthusiast show", science fiction convention not "science fiction reader/watcher convention". Do people go to a "gambler convention"? -- Parody 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to make clear is that the casino gaming industy does not use the term "game" to modify "convention" or anything else. They use "gaming". So while gaming conventions is ambiguous, game conventions only applies to one industry, and that's the hobby game industry. The article gaming convention should probably become game convention for this reason.--Mike Selinker 17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trying to find any relevant information on disambiguation of categories in the help system didn't help me all that much but did bring up two things to consider. The first is that the gambling-related term "gaming" seems to have a synonym in "legalized gambling"; "legalized gambling conventions" probably sounds just as workable to the gambling folks as some of the above suggestions have sounded to me but it would be distinct. (You'd also add a disambiguation note to the current category.) The second is that non-gambling gaming conventions crush gambling gaming conventions in a simple Google Test. ("gaming convention" -wikipedia) -- Parody 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Code generation

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Jan 12 since it garnered no comments. the wub "?!" 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear from the name whether this cat is concerned with compiler code generation or with model-driven engineering, which for some reason its adherents like to call "code generation" (e.g., [1]). The articles in the category are a hodgepodge of both, plus things like Compiler-compiler that concern a third kind of "code generation". I suggest we delete the current cat and, if needed, create new cats for Category:Metaprogramming and Category:Model-driven engineering. There aren't enough articles about code generation (compiler) to warrant a subcat of Category:Compiler theory, which is where the current cat is. Quuxplusone 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bluap 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose misuse of a category is not grounds to delete it. Clean-up the category and create required categories for articles that do not belong in it. Code Generation (compiler) is the obvious criterion for this category. If there was a group of people who felt they were in a generation of people who adhered to a certain moral code, they would have to make another category. So should all the other non-traditional uses of code generation. Jerry lavoie 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misuse of a category is grounds to delete it, if the misuse is a predictable result of its misleading or controversial nature. Wikipedia is forced to use categories that will work in a wiki environment, which rules out a good number of categories which would work in a professional edited encyclopedia in which only authorised people who had been instructed in how each category was to be used would add articles to categories. Osomec 14:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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