Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

November 5

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Enforcers

Category:Enforcers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is a 100% subjective category: "This category is a list of hockey players popularly considered to be "enforcers," that is, those who frequently get into fights." Considered by whom, exactly? Fails WP:NOR. RGTraynor 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional immortals

Category:DC Comics immortals

Category:Marvel Comics immortals

Category:Wildstorm immortals

Most of these are cosmic beings, deities, legendary creatures, aliens, characters who can regenerate, and characters who use magic.

As noted in the links, we already have cats for all of those. So, the first suggestion would be to make them all subcats, and prune as appropriate.

So let's presume that we've pruned.

In addition to those, there are those who resurrect or reincarnate upon death. (Such as Immortal Man.) Or those who may live unendingly, but may be killed. (Such as Middle-earth Elves.) Though perhaps only under certain circumstances. (Such as Highlander immortals.) Or beings of "energy", for whom a physical form doesn't define whether they are "alive", much less whether they are "immortal".

If we discount the above, the number of actual humans who are noted to be immortal are few. Vandal Savage is the main example, and technically even he is now merely a being of energy in human form.

But this also brings to the fore another problem. There are a myriad "types" of immortality. Are we limiting the category to Biological immortality? To only those who are human? Are mutants considered human at least for this determination? Are Homo Magi? Are metahumans? How about someone who had themself imprinted into technology, becoming "one" with a computer or a robot? Is the imprinting considered a duplication? Or do we consider the original character to still be "alive"? What about cloning? If a character "dies", and is "imprinted" onto a physical clone, do we consider this to be a "duplication"? Or do we consider the original character to still be "alive"?

With a myriad of questions as to its appliability, the definition of what is considered "immortality" is just vague.

And when the "definition" of immortality is vague, then the category's inclusion criteria is vague as well.

And all of the above problems means that this category is simply more of a hindrance, than a help, to navigation. - jc37 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all As the great philosopher Woody Allen once said "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying." Immortality is a rather strong trait assigned to a character. When the masters of fiction -- the authors, creators, producers and people in the comic book field -- create characters they endow them with a series of character traits. While hair color or name might be assigned as a whim, characters are not made immortal by coincidence. This is a strong deliberate decision made to a assign a strong defining characteristic. Every single category has potential borderline cases. If legitimate good faith arguments can be made that individual articles do not belong in this category, consideration should be give to their removal. Due recognition should also be given to the grossly disproportionate number of comic book characters involved here, noting that comic books are but a small fraction of the world of fiction, much of which still exists and is produced in book form, and is available in book stores and libraries. As the entire argument for deletion appears to revolve around rather vague claims of potential definitional issues and borderline cases, without any policy argument for deletion, and as the trait is a uniquely defining characteristic, the categories should all be retained. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African born philosophers

Merge into ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:African philosophers

These two categories are essentially redundant in term of contents. The target category is older by far, and there is no reason to include the word "born" in the category name. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cyclopses

This category has similar issues to the "extra arms" cat below.

In this case it's essentialy categorising aliens and mutants who have one eye. (Noting that, technically, Biclops has 2 eyes, and Tri-Klops has 3 eyes : ) - jc37 11:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with extra arms

This is essentially a category of aliens, demons, and shapeshifters.

There are a myriad of forms that such creatures could take, with "extra arms" being just one.

So I think it would be difficult to prove that this is "defining", or even "notable" for these characters. - jc37 10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purely for being the most ridiculous category name I've ever seen! Actually, scratch that, delete on the grounds of what is the definition of "extra". Lugnuts (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept (which I'm not advocating for), it should at least be renamed to something like "fictional characters with more than two arms" to remove the "extra" nonsense. Postdlf (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BWF World Junior Championships

Propose renaming Category:BWF World Junior Championships to Category:World Junior Badminton Championships

Nominator's rationale: The name of BWF is only use since September 2006, all the article before that already move. However, to resolve the problem, renaming to World Junior Badminton Championships will avoid the confusion about the tournament name. Aleen f1 09:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Muslim descent

Category:American people of Muslim descent - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: what does 'of Muslim descent' even mean? emerson7 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Muslim descent means at least one of their parents was a Muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roukas (talk • contribs) 06:19, November 5, 2008 (UTC) (Note: Roukas is the category's creator)
Delete would we have a category "people of christian descent"? Religion is not descent. Tvoz/talk 07:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Actually there is a category named "people of jewish descent"
Delete probably created to attack Obama. Not descent. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is not an attack, this is a fact. Why do you look at it as negetive? Being of Muslim descent is nothing to be ashamed of, even Obama aknowledges it and is proud of it. I advise u to listen to or read the script of Colin Powell's endorsement.
Delete per Tvoz and YellowMonkey. Khoikhoi 07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the creator's motivation, we don't do categories for people by supposed "religious descent". Cgingold (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleged sacrifice

Category:Alleged sacrifice - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: "alleged x" is bound to throw up RS and POV issues. How strong do assertions have to be for it to count as seriously alleged. Needs to be renamed if kept to specify this is about Human sacrifice (as opposed to animal sacrifice). ZayZayEM (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. If you don't like the name, please suggest another one, but the category clearly matches the "real life". Notice however, there are quite a few in All pages with titles beginning with Category:Alleged . "Seriously alleged" follows standard rules of wikipedia: WP:V/WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE. Since I doubt this be hardly a politicized issue, I don't expect much POV wars here. `'Míkka >t 05:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those topics are more clearly defined that are Alleged [nouns] (Alleged [events], Alleged [locations] or Alleged [occupations]). While this category appears to follow a naming convention associated with all three - it appears to have been applied as an occupation (people who are allgedly X), a location (places where X is alleged to have occured), and "miscellenous topics related to alleged instances of X ("Blood libel"). Please also consider I have suggested a renaming Category:Alleged human sacrifice, I just think we would be better off without it. Please do not take deletion noms to heart.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you concluded I am taking it to heart. However if I place Blood libel against Jews into Category:Sacrifice, I may just as well put myself into this category :-) `'Míkka >t 06:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]