Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 5

< January 4 January 6 >

January 5

Category:GLBT New Zealand

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. Timrollpickering 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:GLBT New Zealand to Category:LGBT in New Zealand.

The name is usually LGBT, not GLBT, and I think it makes more sense to add the word "in", although I'm open to persuasion on this.-gadfium 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - SimonLyall 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Seems very obvious. --Wizardman 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --lquilter 18:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:LGBT culture in New Zealand. The LGBT categories are a total mess. Many of them need the same renaming. -- Samuel Wantman 11:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a Google search GLBT and LGBT are both commonly used, so whichever one is the standard in Wikipedia. I think the pages should continue to be called 'gay' or 'gay and lesbian' whatever, as it is more elegant and people are more likely to use those search terms. Searches for GLBT or LGBT rights or whatever should be directed to the existing pages, though. And searches for things like 'gay New Zealand', 'lesbian New Zealand' etc should be directed to this category. I'm not sure how to go about doing this, though. --Helenalex 22:53, 9 January 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:São Toméan culture

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. Timrollpickering 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming... Category:São Toméan culture to Category:Culture of São Tomé and Príncipe
Propose Renaming... Category:São Toméan music to Category:Music of São Tomé and Príncipe
  • Rename because the country is called São Tomé and Príncipe. Renaming would also make it uniform with the other categories in Category:São Tomé and Príncipe - Ezeu 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is both good reason and precedent for renaming the category as proposed; however, uniformity with sibling categories is not a good reason, for the opposite form is convention in Category:Culture by nationality.-choster 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Ezeu. --Wizardman 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per Ezeu. The adjective "São Toméan" can refer to the city (São Tomé), the island (São Tomé Island), and the country (São Tomé and Príncipe), so we should be as specific as possible when it comes to naming articles and categories relating to any of the three of them. Picaroon 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Hanbrook 11:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency --- Safemariner 16:53, 7 January 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:Diabetics by nationality

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. Timrollpickering 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diabetics by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Come on, now. Random intersection. I don't think there are even enough people famous for being diabetic to make one Category:Diabetics, let alone one cat per country (or, in the case of Category:Scottish diabetics, area of the UK). --Quuxplusone 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge this and its subcategories to Category:Diabetics - The cross-section of disease and nationality just seems silly. Please nominate all subcategories. Dr. Submillimeter 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all diabetic subcategories into Category:Diabetics. Doczilla 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge. I like them separated as it's more helpful, but there just isn't enough people to make that work, so it pretty much has to be combined. --Wizardman 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 87 articles in Category:American diabetics alone. Chicheley 07:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all the others are near-empty. Merge per nom, and extremely merge the subcats that don't even cover a full country. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Standard subcategorisation of a well populated parent category. Chicheley 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subcategories unless the parent category is deleted as well, they make the articles more accessible. Hanbrook 11:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Hanbrook - if we have a biographical category of any sort, then nationality is helpful. If you look at the categories there are actually 88 people in the US category; many fewer in all the other cats. Since it looks like the "people by medical or physical conditions" and all the subcats are here to stay, then X by nationality is a good way to break them up. --lquilter 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The national categories allow these articles to be placed in the national healthcare categories. Choalbaton 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, over categorisation. --Bob 15:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choalbaton. - Privacy 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I'd like to delete nearly all of the subcats of Category:People by medical or psychological condition, but since Category:Diabetics exists, national categorisation is the best way to subdivide it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that many of them are small is a lamentable result of systemic bias and a reminder that it needs to be countered, not a reason to delete them. Nathanian 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alll - there are so may people with diabetes that this is a meaningless category. --Peta 04:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously, as per standard categorization methods. Wimstead 11:24, 11 January 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:Translators of hymns

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. Although some contributors have said that Category:Translators by source material should also be deleted, no notice has been placed there and a separate CFD is best for this. Timrollpickering 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators of hymns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - The category seems esoteric; I do not think that many people would use it. I also do not really think that many people are notable primarily and specifically for translating hymns. The category only contains one article; it looks like it is trying to promote the accomplishments of an individual rather than group similar articles together. Therefore, I am recommending it for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization, almost unpopulated category. Doczilla 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It makes much more sense to categorize translators either by their nationality, or by what languages they use. We already do both. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many hymnals list translators of hymns (hymns of other languages), making those translators known for these accomplishments. Potentially Category:Translators by source material could include many different types of translated materials other than hymns and Bibles (the two currently) -- or perhaps you deleters do not think so (or would prefer it didn't, and will nominate any). Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I will nominate Category:Translators by source material if Category:Translators of hymns is deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - also delete Category:Translators by source material (but not its substantial subcat Category:Bible translators). I am persuaded that a consensus should be achieved before a category is created. roundhouse 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while Translators by source material is right now just the two subcats that are rather specific, I would think this might be an area where we need growth. Translators of poetry are quite different from fictional prose; and quite different skills from verbal translators and translators of technical/scientific material. --lquilter 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Many translators don't restrict themselves to one subject area, so catting them all by subject area isn't so useful. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful to look for translators by what they translate. - Privacy 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorisation of an uncommon form of translation, also delete Category:Translators by source material per roundhouse. We already have a series of categories of translators by language pair (e.g. Category:Greek-French translators); and we have translators by nationality. Many translators cross several disciplines, a translator I know would be categorised under 3 language pairs and two nationalities; adding in the categs for her commercial, legal, technical and literary translations would make for a classification nightmare. I suggest that Category:Translators by source material needs a lot more thought if we are to avoid horrendous category clutter.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathanian 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorization by nationality and language is sufficient. Wimstead 11:25, 11 January 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:Filipino writers in English

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 nomination withdrawn by proposer. (And there wasn't a consensus to merge anyway.) Timrollpickering 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino writers in English into Category:English-language writers
  • Merge - This is an obscure triple intersection (language, ethnicity, and career), a form of overcategorization. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not very obscure as the Philippines is a large country where English is an important but not dominant language. An unsubdivided Category:English-language writers would be pretty much useless. Pinoakcourt 07:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the above reasons and the fact that it is interesting to see how many of different nationalities write in any given language. Pastorwayne 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - it has 1 occupant, Dionisio Deista Alejandro. If it was so interesting there would be more people in it. This category was created on 26 Dec 2006 solely to acccommodate DDA, not as part of a general methodical subcatting of Category:English-language writers (which has very few subcats so far). roundhouse 13:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So effectively you are saying that the category system is complete and all the good categories are fully populated. Are you joking? Chicheley 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should it be renamed? Michael G. Davis 18:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, 1-article categories are rarely useful, and this isn't part of any methodical division of Category:English-language writers. Mairi 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep and populate. The category system is still hopelessly immature and needs years of intense improvement effort. This must not be obstructed. Chicheley 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, overcat. The category system is still hopelessly overdone and needs years of improvement, which means not adding arbitrary cats at random. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A nice way to break down the Filipino writers category according to in what language the writers write. - Privacy 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawl of nomination First, Pastorwayne, the category creator, populated this category with a few articles. Moreover, the articles were about people other than Methodist bishops; it did not look like Methodist fancruft. This actually makes the category useful. Second, this category does fit into the category scheme of Category:Filipino writers, although no one bothered to link this category to Category:Filipino writers until I did just now. If that had been done before my nomination, it would have been obvious as to how this category fits into the larger category scheme, as this category is a natural complement to Category:Tagalog-language writers. In the future, categories need to be properly linked to parent categories; this kind of sloppiness only causes confusion. I also strongly recommend that individuals create categories slowly, not at the pace of hundreds per month, so that these types of mistakes do not occur. Dr. Submillimeter 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly reasonable category, and it now has 7 articles. Wimstead 11:26, 11 January 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:Computer and video games based on licensed properties

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. Timrollpickering 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video games based on licensed properties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as nom. While discussing another category, it was realized that this one is not up to snuff. The category is overly broad and does not offer a meaningful, defining characteristic as its basis. Inevidently, all video games are based on something. Sometimes, the ideas are original, other times they're pre-existing. This category doesn't seem to make that destinction, and it would still be too broad even if it did. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Ace Class Shadow beat me to it. Everything is either licensed or unlicensed and often both at the same time. Confusing, unwieldy, and not helpful to base a category on any state as transient and local as the collection of rights included within "licensed". --lquilter 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our discussion of video games based on movies. Doczilla 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 07:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a clear cat --- Safemariner 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've had some trouble taming this cat myself. You'd be surprised on how many games based on public domain works (like Sherlock Homes) keep getting put in there. Though before deleting I recommend that we try to subcategorize as much as possible (category:foo games) while we still have this pool available. On second look, it appears that someone has undone a lot of the work I put into it, re adding items to the category that I filed into the subcategories. Damn it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think at least part of the impetus behind this & related cats is to pull together spin-offs and derivative works. Personally, I think it makes more sense to create work-related categories (series or whatever). See related discussion at Category_talk:Sequels. --lquilter 19:49, 9 January 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:Rat genus

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. Timrollpickering 00:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming... Category:Rat genus to Category:Rat genera
  • Rename, Change to plural. ~ BigrTex 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appropriate name Headphonos 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom. I don't know what Headphonos is talking about. (Also see Category:Mouse genus nominated below; the two should have been nominated for speedy renaming as a group. Are there any more categories with genus/genera mixups?) --Quuxplusone 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't the form for Wikipedia categories something like Category:Genera of rats, Category:Genera of mice? KP Botany 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete; we don't have any other genera-only categories that I'm aware of. -- Visviva 04:52, 11 January 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.

NRC Regions

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 for now but note that several supporting changing from the current names are also open to a restructuring of the categorisation. I recommend that this closure should not be taken to prevent any such restructuring being proposed. Timrollpickering 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region One to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 1
Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region Two to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 2
Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region Three to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 3
Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region Four to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 4
  • Rename, per WP:NCCAT, avoid abbreviations. I'm not necessarily sold on these new names, and could even be talked into an upmerge to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States. ~ BigrTex 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't the form being used Category:Nuclear power ''plants'' not Nuclear power stations? Or what? KP Botany 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support The proposed category names are too long --- Safemariner 16:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination for clarity. It is tempting to support BigrTex's idea of upmerging to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States followed by division by state, but this would be excessive subdivision because there are only 70 nuclear stations to divide between 50 states. In other circumstances I would be concerned about the length of the new category names, but these articles are mostly not heavily categorised. Surprisngly, there does not appear to be even a general by-state sub-cat of Category:Power stations in the United States, so I suggest creating that category and then seeing if any of the state categories are heavily-enough populated to justify subdivision by type of plant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can they be named by the region name: Northeastern, Southeastern, etc. rathern than region number? --- Safemariner 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The more I think about this, the more I feel like upmerge would be the right thing to do. The regions aren't a common way of subdividing, the names are long, and 70 nuclear stations in a merged category aren't enough to justify any subdivision in my mind. I'm going to leave my vote the same now because a change of vote at this point would end up with a no consensus, and the old names are worse than the new. ~ BigrTex 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as the existing names could related to any field. Wimstead 11:26, 11 January 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:Serious games

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 oppose to this rename. Given the feelings that a clearer name is needed, I recommend a relisting, with category to be determined by consensus. Timrollpickering 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now relisted this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:Serious games. Timrollpickering 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Renaming... Category:Serious games to Category:Educational computer and video games
  • This was found in cleaning up from November. That discussion was closed as No Consensus with a proposal that did not suggest a new name. I'm relisting with one of the names that was suggested in the previous discussion to see if there is consensus if a name is suggested. Vegaswikian 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename but note that current Category:Educational computer and video games is described as mostly targeting youth, and will need to be re-described to accommodate adult training games (like military training, etc.). --lquilter 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a better target name, please suggest it. The lack of support for a better name appears to be the reason that there was no consensus in the previous discussion. I will gladly update this proposal if a better name is proposed. Vegaswikian 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Category:Educational computer and video games is a perfectly valid category name using generic terms, not industry jargon. The article Serious game makes it clear that "serious games" is really "adult educational" -- I just think we should make the current Category:Educational computer and video games clear that it includes both adult and juvenile. At some point maybe EdC&VGs should be split into adult & juvenile, if appropriate. --lquilter 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I did in the last discussion. Educational games are a distinct type of game. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as parallel to main article. ~ BigrTex 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename because category meaning is not readily clear to those who see the name of the category at the bottom of a categorized article. Doczilla 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Two different genres. Pinoakcourt 07:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a rename is required, as (1) current name doesn't indicate the category involves computer/video games; and (2) "Serious" seems a vague description. (I'm not sure what's "serious" about the games appearing in the category, otherwise I'd try to make a suggestion...)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the article Serious game, it includes educational / training games for adults and advertising/marketing games. The current Category:Educational computer and video games self-describes as about juvenile/kid games. IMO, the limited definition is not apparent and not a natural use of the term, so I think "educational" should include both adultl & juvenile/kid. The advertising purpose of some games is, I think, a different "kind" of classification, but I posted a comment/question at Talk:Serious game to get more of a sense from other Serious game editors. --lquilter 15:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this information, lquilter. My instinct is to let a discussion at Talk:Serious game work its way to something less vague for both its own article's name and (thus) for the category. Regards, David (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and rename article as well. Overlap is obvious. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but it is close enough. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed rename. Comments about current name are absolutely correct, but proposal is worse as it is an already in-use term in the industry with a different meaning. Maybe Category:Instructional computer and video games? --Rindis 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Educational and Serious are 2 different genres. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify what's within Serious games ? I thought it was (a) educational and (b) promotional. Are there other types of things in there? --lquilter 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that within the computer and video game industry, educational pretty much means K-12 (and pre-school). By the common language of the industry, "educational" has an association with grade-school education, not the broader learning meaning of the word. --Rindis 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relevant policy or guideline on whether to use industry-specific terminology when it's different from generic use, that can help sort this out? --lquilter 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. "Serious" is used to denote a purpose other than purely entertainment. "Educational" tends to refer to those targeted towards teaching K-12 material. The two terms overlap but are not synonymous. --Alan Au 19:49, 10 January 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:American religious writers

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. Timrollpickering 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Religious writers, as a nationality / religion / occupation cross, almost always a bad idea. The parent category currently has a population of only 7 memebers, hardly overpopulated. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Not enough articles to warrant subdividing further. Dugwiki 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I almost think that nationality is irrelevant in some of these religion categories. This is one of them. Dr. Submillimeter 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This cat further distinguishes the many subcats of American writers. If not, should we then delete Category:American business writers -- it doesn't have much population? How about Category:American architecture writers -- that is an extremely speciallized cat -- far more speciallized than Religious writers. Or how about Category:African American non-fiction writers? It is a triple intersection!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - obviously. roundhouse 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Needs a huge amount of populating. The proposal to upmerge in only one direction shows the chronic lack of lateral thinking that afflicts the category system. Category:American writers contains many thousands of articles and needs thorough subcategorisation. Chicheley 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. When there are enough articles, it can be demerged easily. --- Safemariner 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - American writers needs a lot of subcats, including by subject. --lquilter 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, triple intersection. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good to downsize huge categories. - Privacy 03:40, 9 January 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:Animal rights 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 no consensus to recreate. Timrollpickering 23:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Create Category:Animal rights activists
  • Oppose - This has been discussed a lot really and the reasons why this category would be vague and difficult to use have been outlined at the linked talk pages from above. As has been said, the term 'activist' has many different meanings to many different people. Would Paul McCartney by an activist? What about Peter Singer? The amount of extra work this sort of category would create would be tremendous as different editors start to disagree over whether or not someone is covered by this title. We already have 'Animal Liberation Movement' as a category, which contains people, organisations and campaigns within one cat - it only has 133 entries in it plus a couple of subcats (one being 'PETA supporters', which deals entirely with people). Why does it need subdividing?-Localzuk(talk) 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For consistency with other activist and movement categories; e.g., Category:Human rights. --lquilter 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's absolutely no need or good reason for them to be the same. We don't have underground human rights activists as a rule. The animal liberation movement is an entirely different kind of movement. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AR is not so entirely different. Underground activists in other fields include women's rights activists under the Taliban; underground railroad during US slavery era; some environmental activists; and so on. --lquilter 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The regular editors of the animal rights pages who have commented object to this proposal on the grounds that it's impossible within the animal rights movement to decide who is an activist and who is not, in part because of the underground nature of much of the activism, which is absent from most other activist movements. There are philosophers, lawyers, scientists, researchers, on the one hand; then there are the activities the "activists" and activist campaigns (such as the Animal Liberation Front, which is just a name some activists use, not a group) engage in, much of which involves underground actors. That is why we call the category Category:Animal rights movement. To split the category up will be time-consuming, inaccurate, will lead to lots of unnecessary back and forth about who counts as an activist, and will make things harder for the reader to find, not easier, which is the point of categories. There are anyway only 133 pages in the category, so there's no need to split it up. The two users who want to split the category into activists v. everyone else, Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature. The editors who are familiar with it have opposed the suggestion. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are in fact underground aspects to many movements, modern & historical. All movements include philosophers, lawyers, scientists, researchers, and activists. (It's not true that I'm not familiar w/ AR literature, btw.) --lquilter 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lquilter, could you show me an example of a movement similar to the animal liberation movement, where you have academics, scientists etc above ground and some activists too, and others underground? It would be good to compare like with like. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The environmental movement. Any number of religious-based movements often described as "terrorist". The Zapatistas and other movements using pseudonymity and anonymity. Human rights movements in repressive societies. Etc. Every movement & historical moment has some uniquenesses, but not enough to warrant exclusion of the neutral term "activist" to distinguish people active in the movement from, say, philosophies, terms, issues. If we can't use the term "activist' (or something similar to distinguish people) then you have situations like we currently have in Category:Activists, which either includes Category:Animal rights movement and consequently a lot of things that are not people, or we exclude Category:Animal rights movement, and then the activists in that field (and activism in that field as a whole) are invisible to the activist (philosopher, lawyer, advocates, and other people by occupation) categories. Remember, many of these people were just listed as generally "Category:Activists" with no other information -- so they were already categorized as activists, just not within the specific type of activism. --lquilter 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, LQ. What I meant was: can you show me an example of a similar movement on Wikipedia, and how it has been categorized. I'm looking at the Activism category and I don't see anything similiar. What I do see are a lot of quite questionable decisions about people that seem designed to fill the category, rather than be genuinely informative. For example, if you're concerned about the mixture of individuals and the names individuals use when being "active" (.e.g Animal Liberation Front), then call the subcats a name that doesn't imply it contains only individuals. But in any event, the umbrella terms individuals use when "acting" are perfectly appropriate in the same category as the people; indeed, it would be foolish to split them up. This, once again, is why we chose the term Animal rights movement. Several of the subcats in the Activists cat look like original research; for example, "genital integrity activist" gets only six unique hits on Google. [1] Perhaps it's time to rethink the way the Activists category is named and structured, rather than trying to force changes in subject areas that would lead to guesswork and inaccuracy. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Activists needs a lot of work, I agree. Ideally, probably, we should have a project that spends some time thinking about sensible categorization within activist movements. But it's the best we have right now, and I think it's better than organizing people and philosophies and things and events together. I'd be happy to work on a category with folks to think through ways to organize various movement participants. ... As for examples, I think all of the categories there now include a mix of levels of activism (philosophical work, speaking, direct action, and so on); many of them have been criminalized at one time or another & members have had to be "underground" in some regimes (trade unionists, cannabis activists, radical activsts from the 70s, human rights activists, etc.) --Lquilter 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be best to work on the Activists category first, before trying to add another bunch of people to it inappropriately. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are trying to work on the activists category by adding Animal rights activists - activists that you yourself agree should be categorized - yet you refuse to allow it. Does that make sense to you? —Viriditas | Talk 12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - The members of WikiProject Animal rights have been obstructing this category without any valid reason for almost a year in addition to promoting POV naming conventions and blocking any article or list that tries to discuss animal rights activists or activism. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. None of the reasons given above by the opposing members of the Animal rights WikiProject address the categorization in any way, or are unique to this routine categorization. The subject term, "Animal rights activists" is a perfectly reasonable index in use by academic research databases, and neutral, reliable sources classify AR activists easily and without difficulty daily. Currently, it is impossible to find AR activists in the activism category, and this should be remedied to reflect the treatment of every other activist sorted by issue. The arguments the opposers offer make it clear that they have no interest in building an encyclopedia, but in preventing information from being found. As a librarian who understands information science, Lquilter's expert judgement on this matter should be heeded. —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't go about making wild accusations such as those above - your claims are offensive and verge on personal attacks against the people who oppose your idea. We have provided our, valid, reasons multiple times - you just simply disagree with them. That does not make us POV pushers. It does not mean that we are trying to hide information. Can you show us any evidence to support your comments? Can you show where we are trying to push POV titles? -Localzuk(talk) 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do yourself a favor and actually read WP:NPA. In reality, you and other members of your project have been engaged in personal attacks from the beginning. Claiming "Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature" may not appear to be a personal attack to those not following the dicussion on multiple talk pages, but in fact it is, and rises to the level of commenting on the contributor not the content, especially because I have repeatedly informed you and others making this claim that I am familiar with the literature - but you continue to repeat it again and again as an untrue harmful statement - that's covered as a personal attack by the policy. As for your POV pushing, that's been covered on many talk pages, and needs to be maintained in one place, but I have already addressed POV categorization, the elimination of activism, list of activists, and will add that the current naming of "Animal rights movement" as "Animal liberation movement" is totally unsupported. —Viriditas | Talk 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I see, Viriditas, is that, no matter what anyone says to you, you just repeat the same sentences over and over again. For example, we have provided numerous reasons for the article to be called animal liberation movement and have provided scholarly sources, for example here. You don't respond. I have asked you several times what you see as the difference between the terms AR movement and AL movement. You don't respond. Instead, you make personal attacks, sarcastic comments, and keep repeating the same old claims (claims, not arguments). For once, provide some scholarly sources to back up what you say. I have provided a scholarly source showing the distinction between AL and AR movement, and why the former is more inclusive. Now you must provide a scholarly source that says something different about those terms, or else don't mention it again, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for alerting me to your reply to my source query, which only took you four days to complete. And, thank you for demanding that I reply to your message in three days, lest I be accused of ignoring you in the four days I waited patiently for your reply. —Viriditas | Talk 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for the discussion of "Animal rights X" vs. "Animal liberation X". We're just talking about "Animal X activists", which should match its parent category. --lquilter 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose strongly per excellent discussion from Localzuk and SlimVirgin. Viriditas, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this issue. I think it's been clearly enough explained to you that animal liberationism includes animal rightism but not vice versa, and you are now approaching the point where we have to start considering you a vexatious litigant. "Activism" is far too often thrown around as a concept, meaning no more than "has shown some sign of holding a particular view" without much or any actual "activity" as such. I don't think we should endorse that meaning here. Grace Note 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "pointy" about this. It's a deliberate obstruction of categorization and article creation that has been going on for almost a year. The editors involved are confusing the categorization of Animal rights activists with articles on Animal rights philosophy, and mixing up articles on Animal rights activism and social movements for good measure. These are all separate topics, and are not meant to be redirected and pointed to an article entitled "Animal liberation movement". There is a reason we have categories for activists, articles for philosophy topics, and articles for activism and social movements. The same people who are dumping these articles into one category that makes it impossible to find anything (essentially undermining the encyclopedia), are also the same editors who are redirecting articles on activism and animal rights. I'm sorry if you are too close to the issue to understand this problem. —Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There currently isn't a problem. There will be when editors, in perfectly good faith, start slapping this cat on anyone who has made a public statement showing distaste for furs or eating meat. Grace Note 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that will be an appropriate time to deal with the issue. Currently it is pure speculation that that will happen. --- Safemariner 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not speculation. Viriditas already started trying to re-categorize and it was a mess. Is Peter Singer an animal rights activist? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no alleged "mess" nor can you demonstrate one that I created, however I can show that you created a mess by removing categories and dumping 133 articles into a social movement category that contains articles that nobody can find. Now that is a real mess. —Viriditas | Talk 12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One way of dealing with this is to limit the category with a descriptive header, such as This category is for notable people who speak out, write, march or publicize their beliefs about animals having full moral rights under all circumstances. Animal welfarists should be categorized separately in the subcat Category:Animal welfarists. (Information Plus Reference Series Fall 2005, Gale) This issue can begin to be addressed by categorizing the ten people listed as "activists" in Template:Animal liberation movement. Anyone wishing to discuss this should visit Category talk:Activists. —Viriditas | Talk 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Safemariner, I might "speculate" that letting Willy on Wheels have admin tools would be a bad idea. Your argument would seem to be that I should be in favour of his having them until I see what he does with them. Viriditas, your "descriptive header" is, sorry to have to say it, nonsensical. We would proceed to bicker over whether a stated preference for vegetarian food would constitute "speaking out" about their beliefs about animals' having full moral rights (why anyone would speak out about animals' having the right to be identified as the creators of a work is a mystery to me, but I'm sure you have your reasons). I have to say, Viriditas, that given that you are not clear on what "animal rights" are or how the movement is structured, your opinion on who is and who isn't an activist would have to be considered questionable, and your understanding has led you to believe, erroneously in my view, that this category would be at all helpful. Grace Note 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria above is cited, as was the list of animal rights activists that I created. Switching the focus from the topic and the sources cited to attacking the editor providing the sources is intellectually dishonest. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Category:Animal rights movement is not specifically for biographical articles, and it is not acceptable to have no category for biographical articles in this field. Pinoakcourt 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create two cats Category:Animal rights supporters and Category:Animal liberation activists Category:Animal right activists, the first being for the more mainstream people of the likes of Stephen R. L. Clark and Paul McCartney the latter for the more radical elements, hunt-saboteurs, ALF related people. I'm maybe being a little pedantic about liberation in the second cat, but there is a well defined difference as animal liberation involves direct action techniques of physically liberating animals from captivity. The line is clear: those who will only work within the law vrs those who are prepared to break the law, be it simple trespass or more. Pete Singer is probably the only person for who its debatable where to put him. --Salix alba (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following discussion elsewhere, I may have got the liberation bit wrong. But I still think the activist term is well defined, it includes Hunt Sabs, ALF, and various other protestors, and is a well established term outside of wikipedia. One solution suggested is that there is a larger category for people conntected with animal rights, its precice name I'm not sure of,. but with the activist category as a sub cat. I think its important to have a biography category so that the people can easily be found when drilling down from larger biography categories. There also is a a well established tree of category:activists, currently category:Animal rights movement is the anomonly in that category, and an appropriate subcategory. --Salix alba (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we could do the Animal liberation X and Animal rights X split later, with more consensus / input from the AR project? (And wouldn't there be both "activists" and "supporters" of both liberation and rights?) --lquilter 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it would be best if the AR project stays out of this decision as some of the members of that group can be categorized with that label and so they are not really unbiased on this topic --- Safemariner 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making a huge supposition there, Safemariner (and so far as I know, false for the most part), and in any event, it's the people editing those pages who understand the issues.SlimVirgin (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you meant to type "misunderstand". those "pages" don't reflect the history of the Animal rights movement in any way, nor could they remotely be described as neutral in any sense of the term. There are many neutral, reliable sources that cover the Animal rights movement, and yet none of them bear any resemblance to the Animal liberation movement article, nor do any support the elimination of an animal rights activist category. —Viriditas | Talk 12:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Localzuk and SlimVirgin. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support under one name or another. It is bizarre not to have a biographical category in this field. Chicheley 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong support per Pinoakcourt, Chicheley --- Safemariner 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, do not cat people by opinion. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Activists" are an occupation, not an opinion. "Supporters of ..." is an opinion. We're proposing "Animal rights activists" --lquilter 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to give a reason for your vote then? This category is based on action, not opinion. Nathanian 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SV and Localzuk. If '"activists" are an occupation' then it will be a almost empty cat. Like most of the individuals in the movement, Paul McCartney is otherwise employed, I believe. Rockpocket 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Occupation as used in WP cats just means something people do, from what I can tell; not necessarily full-time wage-earning profession. --lquilter 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is about the existence of the category, not whether some people fall in or out of it. A category can be generally useful even if some people are hard to classify within it. Discussion on those individual entry talk pages would be appropriate if a categorization is controversial. --lquilter 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, someone is going to have to make those impossible decisions, so please tell us how you would do it; otherwise it looks as though you're happy to create a mess and leave it for others to tidy up. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is not unique to this category in any way, and applies to the categorization process as a whole, which Lquilter has already addressed. Please stop repeating the same thing, over and over when this has been pointed out to you before. The current "mess" consists of 133 articles that lack categorization. You and your project have already listed ten activists in Template:Animal liberation, so there is already a basis for appropriate categorization, and your comment only serves to distract the discussion away from that basis. Furthermore, reliable sources that describe notable people as animal rights activists should always be considered. —Viriditas | Talk 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question was addressed to Lquilter, who seems to acknowledge elsewhere that the Activist category is a mess. You should start by cleaning it up, rather than trying to squeeze more people into it inappropriately. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your question was addresed to Lquilter, and anyone else supporting this and you have yourself already "inappropriately" but informally categorized at least ten people as animal rights activists in the aforementioned templete, so why would you be against a list or category? Please be consistent. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 07:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not even making sense. Of course there are some people who can clearly be described as AR activists, but there are many, many more for whom it would be problematic. Your posts are so unpleasant that I'm not going to answer any more, and your spamming for support isn't helpful. I've left a question for Lquilter about how she would handle the names I gave. I'd appreciate a response from her, not you, so that I know where she's coming from. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She already answered your question, and you persist in asking it again. And, you've already informally categorized AR activists, yet you won't allow anyone to create a list or a category that reflects your informal categorization. You also asked others to respond, and I did, but I missed the invisible part that said anyone but Viriditas. I apologize. —Viriditas | Talk 07:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lquilter's answer seems to be "well, other categories are difficult so let's have another difficult category". It seems to me that reforming other difficult categories might have been the better answer. Please try to chill out a bit too, man. We're all friends here, yeah? Grace Note 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (to respond to the clarification) I don't see how "something people do" would differ from "opinions people hold" in a practical sense then. As simply expressing public support for a cause is "doing something", and thus we would end up subjectively listing people as "activists" based on an interpretation of expressed opinion. This could be very misleading IMO. I gotta say though, SV, its a little self important of you to include yourself among the McCartneys, Singers and Dershowitz's to be categorised! ;) Rockpocket
  • Yes, we haven't written your article yet! Grace Note 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I started some discussion on the Category talk:Activists page regarding that category generically. (2) I still think we need some biographical category for Category:Animal rights movement. A lot of biographical categories include the generic term "people", as in "Linux people", "Disney people", to gather up disparate types of folks. That might be a reasonable supercategory for the biographical Animal rights movement, but for right now, I'm just proposing Category:Animal rights activists. (3) As for my personal categorizing approach (and I still think this is a bit off-topic for this CFD), where I am not familiar with the person, I look to see how they're already categorized, and make minor changes. For instance, I found a number of folks who were involved in Animal rights activism, listed simply as Category:Activists. I would have sub-categorized as Category:Animal rights activists (and tried to, before realizing this was so controversial and starting the CFD). Not everybody associated with a movement is an activist, of course, and other biographical categories would need to be created to deal with them -- theorists, academics, whatever. To take just one example of someone who was mentioned here: Singer, personally, I think is an activist, of the writing/lecturing sort. (Emma Goldman was that kind of activist, too!) If he had been categorized as Category:Activists I would have subcatted him as Category:Animal rights activists without a problem. (And I would have added Category:Animal rights theorists or academics or scholars or whatever other appropriate cats existed, too.) But if it were challenged, I wouldn't have bothered fighting for it. --lquilter 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very silly to start all these categories to deal with less than 100 articles, and it'd lead to people not being able to find things so easily. Plus it's being suggested and would have to be maintained by people who, with respect, aren't familiar with the subject matter or with any of the individuals (if they were, they wouldn't suggest it). You answered about Singer, but not about the others: what about Dershowitz, Langley, McCartney, Anderson — where would you put them if not in the animal rights movement cat? I really think you need to get the problems with the Activists category sorted out, and preferably call it something else, then come back to discuss this in the future when the current contents of that cat are dealt with. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, clearly we won't get consensus out of this discussion. In the meantime, what do the folks who oppose creation of the biographical Category:Animal rights activists category propose we should do with (a) folks who get tagged Category:Activists with no modifiers, who are clearly Animal rights activists? and (b) should Category:Animal rights movement, which includes activists, non-activist people, and a lot of non-people, get classified within Category:Activists, or not? If we just tag them with ARM and ARM is not listed under Activists or some other bio cat, then we are taking those people (already described as "Activists") out of biographical categories altogether. This proposal was designed to solve those problems. If it's a bad proposal, please give those of us who are working on those categories some other alternative. --lquilter 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can leave it as it is in the meantime, but I'd suggest getting the Activists category sorted out before doing anything else, as the ARM can't be the only movement that raises this kind of issue (you said yourself that it wasn't). You can't force people into an Activist category just because they happen to believe in something, or have written some letters to their local newspapers, or whatever; and you also can't force people like Peter Singer, who basically founded the movement, into a "supporters" category. You still haven't said how you would categorize the others. I think you ought to try, because it would help you to see the wrongheadedness of the categories you were suggesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I didn't know that someone was an "activist" then I wouldn't classify them as an activist. I said personally I would class Singer as an activist. I really fail to see why my personal classification is relevant, and don't appreciate you trying to create a teaching moment for me, but here you go: Dershowitz, not an activist; McCartney, sort of an activist but he is better classed PETA supporters (and is already in that class); Anderson's article describes here as an "advocate" and someone who has participated in campaigns for animal rights, so I wouldn't kick her out of the Animal rights activists category although I wouldn't nec. think to add her to it; Steven Best's article first sentence describes him as an "animal rights activist" and I would therefore categorize him that way; Langley is involved in politics & official boards & scholarship and I think those kinds of folks are not well handled by activists categories right now and I, personally, don't add them to activists categories. Again, I would really stress that hard cases make bad law. The category is best populated by people who are uncontroversially activists. People who are not well-suited for the category should not be added to it, and I don't think I would ever propose creating a category and then adding members that don't belong to it. My opinion on the need for the category has not changed, and I believe I have responded to every question put to me about this. If folks who are adamantly opposed to it could please suggest alternative classification schemes that deal with the biography problem it would be greatly appreciated. --lquilter 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I like Salix alba's idea of creating 2 categories. This should ease some of the concerns raised by SV. Nrets 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on this (and no particular interest in animal rights activism), but I received an offlist solicitation from User:Viriditas to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked many people with diverse backgrounds to comment in order to form a consensus that is independent of the strong opposition from WikiProject Animal rights. If you have no interest in animal rights, you are an ideal person to weigh the necessity of categorizing animal rights activists. So, putting your disinterest aside, can you comment on the usefulness of categorizing activists, and apply it to this instance? Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 06:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I wrote to everyone I knew who had no interest in animal rights and asked them to comment, we'd have chaos. I deliberately haven't done that, because it should be decided by people who are directly involved either in writing animal rights articles (because they're the ones who understand the problems) or by people directly involved in maintaining categories. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I've already addressed this on the WikiProject animal rights talk page. There are many people qualified to comment on this topic, in the fields of philosophy, law, politics, sociology, information science, etc. That you again change your criteria for what you deem as an acceptable participant in this discussion, from Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature to now your addition of people directly involved in maintaining categories only undermines your argument, as both Lquilter and myself have worked on maintaining categories, including Activism and Activists. This has been explaned to you already. —Viriditas | Talk 07:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that I'm currently helping to edit WP:CANVASS (a spin-off of WP:SPAM#Canvassing), although I appreciate your intent to find a diverse group of commenters, I recommend you try to adhere to those guidelines. In Viriditas' defense, the solicitation was worded neutrally, but since you already offered a strong opinion, this solicitation is certainly problematic. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asking you or anyone to agree with me in any way. I'm asking for your educated, informed opinion. And, thanks for the link to the policy. —Viriditas | Talk 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything wrong with canvassing and I never have, so long as you are asking people you believe will make valuable input and not just those you think will back you up (not suggesting that's what you did here; I don't know Trialsanderrors at all). I think that there's a big fuss about it, but how else are we supposed to gain support or increase "consensus"? Grace Note 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose we continue this discussion here. ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per polling discussions elsewhere discussing best practice of listing solicitations in the CFD, I've raised this at several projects to get relevant folks' feedback: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights, Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. It's certainly led to ... a healthy amount of discussion, even if we haven't yet achieved consensus. --lquilter 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are a good number of categories of activists and this is one of the best known forms of activism. Any semantic problems need to be resolved so a category can exist. Nathanian 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am not convinced that "activist" is a problematic term, it doesn't seem to be in other fields. Honbicot 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Animal rights movement is not a biographical category. Wimstead 11:28, 11 January 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:American Methodist writers

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 upmerge. Timrollpickering 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Methodist writers, as a nationality / religion / occupation cross, almost always a bad idea. The parent category currently has a population of only 22 memebers, hardly overpopulated. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An easier merger for Category:Methodist writers itself might be Category:Christian writers. After that it can be discussed whether Christian writers itself should exist.--T. Anthony 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In nearly all cases, I think religion / profession crosses are just irrelevent intersections. But for politicians, writers, judges, religious leaders, and even some artists, it is often relevent. That's why I created Category:Writers by religion. I think that for categories to be useful, you have to strike a balance ... either too narrow or too wide, and it's not useful for browsing. So yes, I think trying to break Methodist writers down by nationality is too narrow. But at the same time, upmerging them into Christian writers is probably too broad. -- ProveIt (talk)
  • Merge per nom Not enough articles to warrant subdividing by nationality Dugwiki 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American Methodist writers, per nomination. I have seen nothing to suggest any utility in subdividing methodist writers by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful category for identifying article about American Methodist writers. Pinoakcourt 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we have another layer of confusion - I'm sure this is not a category 'about American Methodist writers' (multi-biguous, or is it 'multi-guous'?) roundhouse 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We categorize people by nationality and religion. This does both, under two separate trees. It also includes occupation, another important way people are categorized. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. roundhouse 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nationality is very relevant to religion and this sort of category facilitates navigability. Chicheley 08:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, triple intersection. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 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:American anti-fascist propaganda films

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. Timrollpickering 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Redundant cat with only two entries--Dudeman5685 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the understanding that a substantial increase in the articles in this category may allow recreation --- Safemariner
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:Methodist missionaries in Turkey

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 per nom. Timrollpickering 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methodist missionaries in Turkey into Category:Christian missionaries in Asia
  • Merge - This category is highly specialized and only contains one person. It should be merged into a broader category. I suggest "Christian missionaries in Asia". Dr. Submillimeter 14:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom as overcategorisation. Yet another ill-considered category by Pastorwayne :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; for specificity and clarity. --lquilter 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. roundhouse 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - merge suggestion is too general. Rename to Category:Christian missionaries in the Middle East. --GCarty 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BrownHairedGirl. GCarty, Turkey is not in the Middle East according to any sources I've seen, so that's a weird suggestion. --63.102.70.67 02:10, 10 January 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:Missionaries in Asia

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 per nom. Timrollpickering 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missionaries in Asia into Category:Christian missionaries in Asia
  • Merge - "Missionaries in Asia" is currently a subcategory of "Christian missionaries in Asia", thus implying that all the people in "Missionaries in Asia" are Christians (and, checking some biographies and names, they do appear to all be Christians). Having the extra category layer is therefore nonsensical. The categories should be merged to "Christian missionaries in Asia", since religion is clearly related to the occupation and since categories for other religions do exist (Category:Hindu missionaries) or could conceivably exist. Dr. Submillimeter 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom as weird overcategorisation. Yet another ill-considered category by Pastorwayne :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --lquilter 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do other religions have Missionaries? Don't Muslims have them, though might be called something else? Perhaps other religions? Pastorwayne 12:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A google search on "Buddhist missionaries" shows that Buddhists use the term frequently. Muslims apparently do not use the missionary system as frequently, although some religious activites by Muslims (such as in the Untied States) could be called "missionary work". Dr. Submillimeter 12:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for very helpful information! Thus, would it not be wiser to keep the more inclusive cats (as well as, perhaps, subcats for specificity)? Pastorwayne 12:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current "Missionaries" category substructure is a mess. Keeping these categories separate only contributes to the problem. This proposal (and the others related to missionaries on this page) are the first steps to cleaning up this chaos. Dr. Submillimeter 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and re-think. roundhouse 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the other way around - xtian missions should be a subcat of the missionaries in asia. I have only recently created the Hindu missionaries cat, and will create the Buddhist cat soon for people like Ashoka, etc.Bakaman 03:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the other way around as there are missionaries of other religions besides Christianity --- Safemariner 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Category:Missionaries in Asia appears to contain nothing but articles on Christian missionaries (and I even checked), which is why I suggested the merge to Category:Christian missionaries in Asia. If I am mistaken, please tell me so. Also, I hope User:Bakasuprman will clean up the Category:Missionaries category tree. Dr. Submillimeter 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have began adding Shantidas Adhikari and other Hindu missionaries to their respective geographical cats. Also I edited the dr comment above so it did not look like i signed in the middle of his comment (hope you dont mind). I will make an overhaul of the cat.Bakaman 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep missionaries in Asia as parent of Christian missionaries in Asia and of other religions. - Privacy 03:42, 9 January 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:Missionaries in Africa

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. Timrollpickering 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian missionaries in Africa into Category:Christian missionaries in Africa

  • Merge - "Missionaries in Africa" is currently a subcategory of "Christian missionaries in Africa", thus implying that all the people in "Missionaries in Africa" are Christians. Having the extra category layer is therefore nonsensical. The categories should be merged to "Christian missionaries in Africa", since religion is clearly related to the occupation and since categories for other religions do exist (Category:Hindu missionaries) or could conceivably exist. Dr. Submillimeter 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom as overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom for specificity and clarity.--lquilter 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also see comments above about other relgions and missionaries. Pastorwayne 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and re-think. roundhouse 13:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the other way around - There obviously were Muslim missionaries in Africa, and one hindu missionary that could conceivably be added Swami Ghanananda. Therefore xtian should be a subcat of missionaries in africa.Bakaman 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Category:Missionaries in Africa appears to contain nothing but articles on Christian missionaries (and I checked many of them), which is why I suggested the merge to Category:Christian missionaries in Africa. If I am mistaken, please tell me so. Also, I hope User:Bakasuprman will clean up the Category:Missionaries category tree. Dr. Submillimeter 11:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have began adding Swami Ghanananda and other Hindu missionaries to their respective geographical cats. Also I edited the dr comment above so it did not look like i signed in the middle of his comment (hope you dont mind).Bakaman 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Christian missionaries in Africa into Category:Missionaries in Africa as other religions also have missionaries --- Safemariner 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as my vote above for the Asian category. - Privacy 03:44, 9 January 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:Living supercentenarians

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. Timrollpickering 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Supercentenarians, due to upkeep issues and the special and unique attributes of Category:Living people. See October 28th discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge given precedent and upkeep issues. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but with reluctance. I pretty much reject the whole idea of Category:Living people and this is the kind of situation where a person being alive is notable. Still the article on Oldest people indicates who is a living supercentarian as well or better than this and is easier to work with.--T. Anthony 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is better in a "rapidly-changing article" form. One article is easier to update than 13. Dr. Submillimeter 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that Category:Living people exists partially for legal reasons. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Obviously there has to be some way to know if WP:BLP applies or not ... people keep careful watch on members of this category. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I remain pretty skeptical. A great many living people still aren't in it and I'm not convinced it even succeeds at its goal. Having it as Category:BLP would also take less room and look less silly.--T. Anthony 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, Living People doesn't have subcats Dugwiki 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - no need for this category. List --lquilter 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wikipedia's strict instruction not to have living/dead cats. Doczilla 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it should do for extremes of age. The policy is an ass to quote Charles Dickens, and it should be changed for categories like this. Dovea 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am an inclusionist. Where in Wikipedia are there guidelines about not to have categories based on a common factor (i.e. being over 100 years old, having been in a silent film) and being alive, and why do such instructions against them exist?--HisSpaceResearch 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm actually pretty much an inclusionist too, at least for articles ... for categories, its sort of a balancing act, you don't want them to be either too narrow or too wide. The biggest technical problem with this one is the upkeep issue. It's like making a category for People who are 20 years old, it requires constant updates ... The other issue is that Thou shalt not subcat living people rule; I tried looking for that the other day and couldn't find it. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, this discussion is of interest ... -- ProveIt (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • FYI, the category description for Category:Living people specifies in bold and italics "Organization: This category should not be sub-categorised. Entries are generally sorted by family name. As of 1 January 2007, there are 151,908 articles in this category." Dugwiki 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The policy should be changed for this instance. Also, Proveit - there must only be 15-20 people who are living supercentenarians, so I can't see upkeep being an issue. There are rather more "people who are 20 years old" - I agree that would be a problem. Dovea 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We don't subdivide Category:Living People, and tghis one is too fast moving to be reliable. --81.156.255.136 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the IP above. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why can't Category:Living people have subcategories? - Privacy 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The most stupid thing on Wikipedia I've come across is not being able to put extremes of living people into subcategories. I am frankly astounded that a category like this can not be created. Surely such categories would be of great value and interest to the vast majority of people, and not the minority of pedantics who spend so much time deleting them (no offence intended). Weatherman90, I've incorporated all my deleted categories like this on my user page, I'd advise you to do the same if you'd like it kept because it's going to wrongly get deleted whether we like it or not. Dovea 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remain convinced that Category:Living people is an utter waste of time. You can still add all kinds of nonsense to articles on people in the category without it causing any attention. In addition many living people, even from the US, will forever remain beyond its grasp. Still I voted as I did because I think lists might be better on things like this.--T. Anthony 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per above. Weatherman90 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there was an exception to the rule that living people can not be subcategorised (and there should be), here would be the obvious nomination. Dovea 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category itself acknowledges exceptions of a kind. The page states in the "See also" section that Category:Possibly living people is not included here. Something like that could be done here, but I think there were other issus than some silly rule about a category created in a misguided effort to avoid lawsuits.--T. Anthony 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a bad prededent and as per nom. Honbicot 18:42, 10 January 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:Byzantine-Ottoman wars

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. Timrollpickering 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Byzantine-Ottoman wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty, depopulated category that does not include even the articles it links to. Skysmith 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just corrected that problem, but it's still depopulated.--HisSpaceResearch 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I added more articles and added categories Hmains 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A profoundly important series of wars between two major empires. Osomec 09:54, 8 January 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:Category name

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 "?!" 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty self-reference. Skysmith 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - It is an empty nonsense category. Dr. Submillimeter 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - probably been made by mistake by a new user.--HisSpaceResearch 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete empty and without any obvious purpose. Pascal.Tesson 05:38, 8 January 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:Notable college football games

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. Timrollpickering 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Notable POV category name.--Nijnx 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename If it's not notable, it wouldn't be here. Xiner (talk, email) 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above, the word "notable" isn't needed. Dugwiki 16:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "notable" is either implied by inclusion or is subjective/POV. Whichever way you look at it, the word needs to go! -- Xtifr tälk 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hanbrook 11:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to American college football games. In most of the rest of the world, football means a completely different game --- Safemariner 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to American college football games in keeping with rest of Category:American football, and rename Category:College football hierarchy as well ... Per Safemariner. --lquilter 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:College football games for now, and renominate the "College football" hierarchy for renaming to "American college football" or something. (The problem with the "American college football" name is that it seems to exclude college football games played outside the United States. But an editor's note on the category page might solve that issue.) --63.102.70.67 02:06, 10 January 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:African American Skateboarders

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 "?!" 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American skateboarders, or at least Rename to Category:African American skateboarders. Is ethinicity really relevent here? -- ProveIt (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent cat, per nom. --Quuxplusone 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent cat. Irrelevant intersection. Nathanian 16:43, 10 January 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:Animal Cell Culture

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 SPEEDY DELETED per C1. Postdlf 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal Cell Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Category" newcomer created apparently by mistake; text is identical to the article of the same name. Skysmith 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask the creator? Xiner (talk, email) 15:06, 5 January 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:Annoying people who don't seem to do anything except turn up on TV 'lists' programmes spouting off about shite

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 SPEEDY DELETED, obvious nonsense. Postdlf 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Annoying people who don't seem to do anything except turn up on TV 'lists' programmes spouting off about shite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonsense category apparently created out of spite. Skysmith 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for nonsense category--lquilter 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:07, 5 January 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:Roman Catholic mobsters

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 SPEEDY DELETED, as repost of previously deleted category. Postdlf 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic mobsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New category with just one name. More of a discussion than a deletion. Is this a significant intersection or not? (I could see how it could be so I'm not voting)--T. Anthony 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreated content -- ProveIt (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't known that, huh.--T. Anthony 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per ProveIt. Budgiekiller 13:45, 5 January 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:Public education in the United States

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. Timrollpickering 20:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public education in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category need is already fufilled by Category:Education in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:United States education by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Remaining articles can be easily moved. ⇔ EntChickie 08:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/delete per nom. Confusing for non-Americans who won't understand what the scope of it is, and most education is public in anycase so it is largely duplicative. Pinoakcourt 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, they're really not the same thing, is it? This category is well kept with public education by state. Xiner (talk, email) 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles seem to overlap. There's very little that is linked in Public education that isn't cross linked with the Education category in each state. ⇔ EntChickie 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xiner. Meaningful and useful subcategory. Postdlf 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Education" and "Public education" aren't the same thing. There are a plethora of private educational institutions that don't fall under the Public Education category. Dugwiki 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to "Primary education in the United States", which is what that category is about. --lquilter 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Primary education in the United States. These can not be merged since this category is clearly a large unique sub category of the proposed target. Vegaswikian 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dropped the rename when I realized that a rename would require a split for primary and secondary education. Vegaswikian 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename to Primary Education Primary (ie elementary) education is not the same as Public (ie government provided) education. There are both Private primary schools and Public primary schools. Dugwiki 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if you look, most categories in there are empty so it is not clear what the intent is. Focusing this on primary education is an option, maybe a bad one, but still an option. Vegaswikian 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dugwiki -- it's true of course that public & private are different, but it's not clear why that's important. Also, of course, in England "public" means exactly the opposite of "public" in the US, so I think use of the term "public" is not to be preferred in a category to mean "government-funded". --lquilter 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So confusing that even American editors can't agree what it is being used for. Chicheley 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as Public education in the United States has a specific meaning of government owned. Considering the high and rising cost of tuition in State Universities in the United States, I no longer associate public education with government-funded but more with government-owned. --- Safemariner 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But again, the problem is that "public education" does not mean "government owned" in the UK; it means private -- so it will be confusing to have the term in a cat. --lquilter 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you suggest then? This is the correct name in the US. Using something like Category:government funded education in the United States or Category:government owned education in the United States would not work since those cover more then primary and secondary education. Category:government owned primary and secondary education in the United States could work, but would be too long and unnatural. Also note that this category is specific to the United States. Vegaswikian 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think it's necessary to split out public & private US primary education right now. Primary education is the important denominator, and the various categories we have already in US education (by state and locality) are barely populated. How many primary school articles will actually be notable enough to make it into that hierarchy, and then require public/private subdivisions within each locality/state cat? Maybe a handful of schools in large communities are notable; not enough to necessitate public/private subdivisions. So the question is whether it is useful, and I think the utility is marginal. --lquilter 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are two independent and notable aspects of education. "Primary" refers to the grade level of the institution, while in the United States "Public" or "Private" refer to the two main ways an institution receives its funding. They cover entirely different aspects - one is a funding aspect, the other is grade level. And both aspects are important enough to warrant sorting articles by them. Dugwiki 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, they're two separate things. However if you look at what's included public secondary is not included -- just public primary. So this category is de facto "public primary schools" and I just don't see there will be enough notable primary schools to warrant division into public and private. I'm not virulently opposed to the private/public distinction, because public or private is a real and significant fact; I just think it's overcategorization, will be confusing because of the terminology, won't be particularly useful, and will generate a lot of categories with one to three entries. --lquilter 14:25, 10 January 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:Cocktails (expand)

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 deleted. the wub "?!" 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the category created by the above mentioned cocktail-expand template ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE - Ready for deletion now. Thanks for waiting. --Willscrlt 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until 08:00 UTC January 7, 2007 so I can create a project to do list, then delete. DENY - As stated above, these are not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here.
  • If there is a better way to meet our goals and fall within established guidelines, please advise me. Then please give me time or help us swap out the currently marked articles to the new method so we can be within compliance.
  • Thank you for your consideration. --Willscrlt 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are far better ways to do this sort of thing, Willscrlt. Have a look at the coffee-coloured boxes on Talk:Flying (song), or Talk: Michael Smither, or Talk:Pentane. These are the sort of assessment boxes normally used by WikiProjects that want to rate their articles as to whether they need expansion or not. This standardised system makes far more sense than inventing several new grades of stub for one stand-alone WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions Grutness. That is actually part of the solution I suggested at User talk:Amalas#Cocktails: Fixes. Unfortunately, that link appears not to have been brought over with this twice-moved nomination. A few questions (since this is my first time through one of these procedures):
  • How much time do I have to implement a new system that falls within the guidelines? I have not created a parser template yet, and they do look like they have a bit of a learning curve. I'm a fairly experienced PHP and VB programmer, so it should only take a few days to develop something like the Talk:Pentane, maybe a few weeks for something more advanced like Talk:Flying (song). That is something I wanted to do once I saw the other WikiProjects doing that. I just have already made commitments to complete the cleanup project by the end of February in some AfD discussions. I can't afford the time it would take to stop cleanup to fix templates, nor can I afford the time of having the articles that have already been classified either lose their classification or be thrown into the large stubs category. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.
  • If not much time, what happens to the articles that are current marked as "expands"? Would they just be left as regular articles with no indication of their less than acceptable nature? Or would be be listed as stubs, which would add to the confusion when the micro-stubs also get mixed in there? Pretty soon, the stub designation will be practically meaningless, which is the reason I created the two variations in the first place. It has been a lot of hard work to get things organized and useful. It may not have been the right or best solution, but it has become a very effective one for our efforts right now. I really, really would hate to have a generally accepted guideline steer a lot of work off and down a bumpy road just for the sake of enforcing a guideline at this exact point in time, when if we could be given until the end of Feb (the same time the cleanup project is expected to end), or a little extra time (to develop the new templates), we could incorporate elimination of the contentious categories and templates into our cleanup project.
  • If that is not possible, and if enforcement of guidelines is more important than helping concerned Wikipedians work through a faux pas, then is there anyone willing to help out to (1) develop or clone a template for the WikiProject that we could use to quickly re-tag the offensively tagged articles with proper ratings before we lose the information we have worked hard to organize, and (2) help re-tag the articles. Thanks. --Willscrlt 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution might well be to make a temporary subpage of your user page (or of your WikiProject page) and list the articles ther, with appropriate headings as to their status, while you work on the talk page template. That would still give you an active list of articles to work on. Another option would be to simply make a temporary simple template for the talk pages and add it where necessary without substing, then fix up to a full parser form later and replace the simple form with that. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, you are the good idea man, aren't you? :-D Naturally I read this after I just edited the stub discussion, otherwise I would have included this in that discussion. Oh well. The moving it to a personal page or Vegaswikian's suggestion of a Project work list should be fine. Since I have created a proper to-do list for the Project now (we never had one before, imagine that!), and I can add these to that. I should be able to complete that within a day. Then I suppose I will get to try out AWB for the first time (that makes me a little nervous), and remove the templates from each article. That is okay to do while this is under discussion, right? I mean, I don't want to get into trouble for breaking more rules while trying to fix the mess that got us here. :-)
You didn't answer the question of how long one of these deletion discussions usually runs. Just for future reference (not that I hope to ever have to go through one again, ugh). --Willscrlt 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually about a week for CFD and TFD, I think - with SFD, if there'san alternative soluution suggested, things wait at the botom of the page until it's been carried out (within reason, of course). Grutness...wha? 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close/keep Faulty nomination, belongs into CFD. CharonX/talk 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is a category, but I was trying to keep it together with the similarly listed {{cocktail-expand}} above. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE This was moved from WP:MFD as an improper listing. — xaosflux Talk 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is a project work list. As such it should be maintained as a list on the project page. There is no need for a category. Vegaswikian 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vegas, please bear in mind that a strong statement like that is rather harsh thing for someone who acted in good faith and is only trying to help improve Wikipedia. Bear in mind that it is difficult for the user who is bearing the brunt of this action to tell if your strong-ness is because you feel strongly about a specific course of action or if you are pissed off at the whole thing happening and you want it dealt with yesterday. Fortunately, I'm a pretty strong person, and I'm going to assume good faith here. It might also be helpful in future situations like this to at least point the person to a way to do what you suggest. Like I said, the WikiProject I'm involved with was never really setup properly in the first place, and a lot of things you assume I should know are things I am only now learning about. I'm sure you read lots of these things, but it it's my first one and was quite a shock to the system. Fortunately most people have been pretty helpful (including Grutness pointing me to those project headers), and that has helped. Be gentle with the newbies only trying to help. Thanks! --Willscrlt 10:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my impression that the phrase Strong Delete is not a personal reproach in the world of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion forums. It is just an indication to the person closing the discussion. Vegaswikian even wrote the proper course of action.--- Safemariner 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. My point was to bear in mind the human factors involved: namely a well meaning user new to all this, and how a statement like that could be viewed. I'm sure that Wikipedia loses several good potential editors each week simply because to those who have been involved in discussions like this, it's a very cut and dry issue. But there is usually a person involved, likely very personally and emotionally, and the clinical discussion can come across as very cold and even mean to those not familiar with protocol. My apologies to Vegaswikian. Safemariner is right, Vegas did nothing wrong. I was probably still a little too emotional when I wrote that. :-) --Willscrlt 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. And welcome. Vegaswikian 06:33, 8 January 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:JAG cast

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 "?!" 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JAG cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a recreation of Category:JAG actors which was deleted and listified as List of JAG actors per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 20. Creator of this category participated in that discussion and should be aware of its outcome.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete recreation. Categorizing every actor for every job he or she has ever had gives each article so many categories that any categorization becomes meaningless. Doczilla 06:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more detailed reasoning here. This category has a narrower scope than JAG actors and is not a repost. The war of attrition against actors by series is becoming sickening. Tim! 07:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • and since when are bots listing CFDs? Tim! 07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - This is a recreation of a recently-deleted category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oppose "X cast" and "X actors" categories --lquilter 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim!. "Cast" is far more narrower than "actors," so prior CFD not binding, and I'm comfortable (for now at least) with categorizing actors by such substantial, ongoing roles, just not every guest spot. Postdlf 16:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedy Tim is correct that this is not a recreation. The previous debate was for a category that included guest stars, which played a role in the deletion debate. That being said, I don't think the category is necessary as the entire cast list and links to all the associated regjular actor articles can be easily accessed from both List of JAG actors and JAG. Dugwiki 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dugwiki --- Safemariner 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the list is more comprehensive. >Radiant< 14:52, 11 January 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:Mouse genus

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 Category has already been moved to Category:Genera of mice. Timrollpickering 01:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mouse genus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Oppose - Name is correct Headphonos 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genus is singular. Rename to correct plural Category:Mouse genera. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Grutness. Xiner (talk, email) 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to plural. ~ BigrTex 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Mouse genus" implies a single genus that refers to the mouse, and the category would be members of the single genus, in other words a category of the various species of the genus mouse. Mouse genera implies the correct level, genera of mice. KP Botany 23:10, 6 January 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:History of comic books

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 "?!" 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of comic books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Redundant category using overly broad criteria. J Greb 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's just being used as a dumping ground for comic book creators, companies, titles, and characters that are reasonably well known, both defunct and currently published, early and recent, without any conceiveable way to limit inclusion. Categories do not substitute for articles. Postdlf 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the words of the Cybermen: Delete delete deleeeete! This is a ridiculously broad category that has suddenly become a target for comic-related articles of every kind. It's useless. Doczilla 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's hard to see how this category substantially differs from Category:Comic books. Technically just about any article that deals with comic books also is part of comic book history. Dugwiki 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my delete vote is identical to this category in one way: they are both redundant. --Squashua 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was worried about this when I saw it in DKR. Seems to encourage, if not rely on, utterly subjective/POV inclusion. "ooh! I like this book, it belongs!" Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too broad --- Safemariner 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no obvious criteria for in/exclusion, appears to be POV. Palendrom 22:00, 7 January 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:Articles with example Euphoria code and others

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 "?!" 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with example Euphoria code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Articles with example Ocaml code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Articles with example Common Lisp code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Articles with example Visual Basic code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Articles with example REALbasic code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obscure programming-language sample code category; please read 1. Category is empty. Quuxplusone 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial delete. All empty categories in the above list should be deleted if for no reason other than notability. --- Safemariner 17:29, 7 January 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:Articles with example J code and others

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 "?!" 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with example J code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Articles with example ML code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Articles with example Atlas Autocode code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obscure programming-language sample code category; please read 1. Category has one member. Quuxplusone 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If anyone can rewrite Tagged union in another functional language, such as Haskell or Scheme — or rewrite the few articles in those languages in ML — please do.
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:15, 5 January 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:Articles with example JavaScript code

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 "?!" 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with example JavaScript code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obscure programming-language sample code category; please read 1. Category has two members, but the Quine (computing) sample code could reasonably be deleted, and the other one is AJILE (describing an extension to the language itself). Quuxplusone 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:16, 5 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_5&oldid=1138134260"