Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 1

< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Category:DNA BEING KEY IN CASES

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as empty. – Fayenatic London 19:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:DNA BEING KEY IN CASES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Guess why :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Was this emptied out of process? Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It contained a single page, which was speedied, as I guess from its state I've seen it last time. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no page belongs in a category called "DNA BEING KEY IN CASES". It doesn't describe anything! The prohibition on emptying out of process doesn't really apply to a category that doesn't have any inclusion or exclusion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it has reasonable inclusion and exclusion criteria, and category:Cases resolved by DNA testing would be fine with me. Unless it was objected on principle that category:Cases reloved by blind witness evidence or category:Cases without corpus delicti etc. are not really wikipedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; it's impossible to say what resolved a case. A witness, some evidence, the arguments of counsel, some predisposition of the judge or juror, the bad acts of the defendant outside of the case at issue, racism, or just a bad day for someone... Prove it, in any event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A proper category wouldn't be in all caps and would follow a different naming convention. And that's if we even needed this in the first place pbp 04:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our article on DNA profiling has a list of notable cases, and we have a category about Category:DNA profiling techniques that could serve as parent for a proper category. But this poorly-named category has no content. Dimadick (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Puerto Rican short story writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Again, a bottom rung of the ladder issue. Per WP:EGRS, ethnic subdivision cats should not be created if they are the last cat on the tree, and if the parent cat cannot be further diffused. This is one such example. End the ghettoization! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This appears to me to be the category for short story writers from Puerto Rico (and is a descendant of Category:People from Puerto Rico) - a case of wires crossed between nationality and ethnicity? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a very good point. Ok, let's wait for others to weigh in - there may be a case here for a by-nationality-more-or-less subcat of American for puerto ricans, given that country's status. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not really by ethnicity, it is by quasi-nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's true that politically Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States rather than a fully independent country, it is a territory whose residents continue to hold a distinct status as a separate quasi-nationality — as well as one whose longterm political status (independence from the United States, admission as a state, etc.) is still in a state of continual debate and has not been permanently resolved. We certainly know what its political status is today — but it could become a fully independent country tomorrow for all we can really determine without violating WP:CRYSTAL. One of the reasons I favour a review of WP:CATGRS to update and revise it in accordance with new realities is that the distinction between nationality and ethnicity isn't always as clearcut as the document's current state makes it out to be — and Puerto Rico is one of the canonical examples of a place that falls right into the grey area. I personally believe that Puerto Rico should be allowed any occupational category that it would be given if it were a fully independent country (with the proviso that in the current context they should be filed as subcategories of the USian ones rather than sibling subcategories of Category:Short story writers by nationality) — but while I acknowledge that other people may have valid opinions in the other direction, I don't know that CFDing one individual Puerto Rican category while leaving so many other equivalent categories in place is really the best venue for that discussion. Keep for now; we'd be better off discussing what types of categorization should be allowed or disallowed for Puerto Rico (and other subnational territories which occupy a grey area between nationality and ethnicity, such as Guam or Curaçao or Greenland or the Isle of Man) in greater depth as part of a more comprehensive WP:CATGRS review than we are here. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Puerto Rico is a colony by any other name and not fully integrated into the USA, politically or socially.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw per comments above by Bearcat and others, I withdraw this nomination - can an admin close please? This is a special case of a blend of ethnicity and nationality, and we don't have any opposition to creating sub-national categories (see many UK cats which have Scotland, England, Scottish, English, etc underneath). I think we could fairly treat Puerto Rico in a similar fashion (and Guam, etc). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Scotland and Puerto Rico are countries, albeit non-sovereign ones. They compete as such in a number of international fora.--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. While not a perfect solution, this is the consensus. With that in place, editors are free to create subcategories and move articles as needed to finish the cleanup. If the target needs tagging as {{Container category}} feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Christian liturgy is "a pattern for worship", and Christian rites redirects to Christian liturgy. "Worship" should cover all of these things more concisely. JFH (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • split, to be worked out As one might guess, this category is a mess. Just lumping it all under "worship" isn't a good enough solution; I'm not sure it's even the right solution. At the very least there needs to be an overall Category:Liturgy subsidiary to whatever/some parent category. This is not something that is going to be fully resolved by one simple category change. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So because it doesn't fix everything that ails this section of WP we shouldn't make the change? Christian worship seems like a concept that should have a broad category. Category:Liturgy would include some non-Christian things and only some members of Category:Christian worship. I'm not sure how your desire for such a category is relevant to this nom. --JFH (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. It would be possible to create a sub-category for Category:Christian liturgy or Category:Christian liturgies, but that extra layer might hinder rather than help navigation, especially as I do not think there are sister categories equivalent to liturgy in other religions. There is currently no Category:Worship either, but there are Category:Rituals and Category:Religious behaviour and experience‎; these provide some related links between religions, and may be sufficient. – Fayenatic London 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African-American Latter Day Saints

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge; nominator has withdrawn. A rename to Category:Black Mormons may be appropriate, as noted below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:African-American Latter Day Saints to Category:American Latter Day Saints.
  • Nominator's rationale While it might appear we have a parent article in Black Latter Day Saints, that is about a race intersecting with a religion, we are supposed to use this as an ethnicity intersecting with a religion. This means that the two most prominent black people within the Mormon religious hierarchy, Edward Dube and Joseph Sitati are excluded because they are clearly not by any definition "American". Even an American citizen like Alex Boye whose parents were Nigerian really probably does not fit. Boye is a Black British immigrant to the United States of Nigerian descent, there is no real workable way to tag him as an African-American by ethnicity. While there are a few subcats of Category:American Latter Day Saints there are not enough for this to not be ghetoizing. We have a list in the article Black Mormons, and if anyone thinks that any of the contents here belong on that list, they are free to add them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - You have clearly not read the articles on this subject properly. Blacks were denied the Mormon priesthood until 1978 and there are number of doctrinal and political controversies regarding blacks and African Americans specifically. That is why there is an arrticle about them and not the far more numerous Scandinavian American group in Mormonism (which includes the current Pres Monson).
Note nominator also has a history of being an obsessive, hasty and overzealous deletionist, and like many such people as usual has not bothered to list it on the relevant Wikiprojects or told the category creator so it can be discussed properly by interested and informed parties. Please do so in future.MacRùsgail (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal attack is shameful. The nominator self-identifies as a Mormon, so it's probably factually inaccurate to boot. The fact that the Mormon church discriminated against African Americans does not make the category sustainable, any more than Category:Mexican Roman Catholics with Aztec ancestry or Category:African American Baptists or Category:Divorced Roman Catholics or Category:Gay (pick a religion), etc. A valid article topic is religion's discrimatory behavior and theology, but not categorizing people by "victim" and "organization unit that victimized them (or used to do so)" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: The nominator has listed it on neither the LDS nor the African American projects as he should. (I will rectify that shortly) Fact: There was specific doctrinal mentions of blacks in Mormon theology, so your second assertion is a category error. Fact: African Americans have run campaigns on this issue, and there are specific groups such as the (Actually there have been "gay" etc categories, if you care to check)
I do not see it as a personal attack, as the nominator is yet another one of the folk who hang around here all the time. If I criticise someone for their actions and conscious choices, I am entitled to.--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Why are virtually no nominations on here listed on the relevant Wikiprojects? That's shameful.[reply]
  • Comment - The topic of LDS & African diasporic people is clearly notable because of the LDS doctrinal issues wrt African Americans. I'm not familiar enough with it to say whether "African-American" is the correct subject, or all people of African descent -- for instance, African Canadians, which I imagine would be relevant because of Canada's fairly significant LDS population. --Lquilter (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the parent article to Category:Black Mormons. This could well have been a C2D speedy rename, "A rename to facilitate concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name". This will avoid the problems with nationality that JPL identifies without getting rid of this category, which as Lquilter notes, is important because of the context around Official Declaration 2. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't category victim by (purported former) victimizer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am very familiar with the topic, and actually personally know at least one of the people so categorized. However I think people above are ignoring the clear, unquestioned guidance of "do not categorize by race". The issue is much broader than African-Americans. On the other hand, the policies mentioned have never really had any effects on some people in this category, at least not easily determined ones. The example that comes to mind the quickest is Mia Love, who did not join the LDS Church until the late-1990s, so she was not effected by the pre-June 1978 policy. Since her husband is a Euro-American Mormon, it is even hard to argue that she is much affected by social impacts of previous policies. However this nomination is based on relevant policies. Let me repeat, we categorize by ethnicity, not by race. We cannot group people into a trans-national, racial category Black Mormons. We can and do have an article on such, and that works, but not as a category. Edward Dube, Emmanuel A. Kissi and Joseph W. Sitati are clearly black Mormons, but as a Zimbabwean, a Kenyan and a Ghanaian they are not African-American Mormons. Nor by most definitions is Marcus Martins, although he is a bit more iffy. Martins was directly effected by the 1978 revelation. He had been a member of the LDS Church since 1972, when he was 13, but was not ordained to the priesthood until after the revelation. Martins is an American citizen, but ethnically I would argue he remains Afro-Brazilian, although having read his book "Blacks and The Mormon Priesthood" I am not sure that Martins would self-identify as being ethnically more than just Brazilian. This category also essentially violates the bottom rung rule. While there are other sub-cats of ;Category:American Latter-day Saints, the category is primarily not diffused, and so if we diffuse by race we end up seperating off those people so diffused from the main part of the category. I still think this is much better handled by a list than a category. We do not categorize by race, but by ethnicity, but the subject that is being studied here is clearly race. Other people who we would want to include if this category was comprehensive would be Helvécio Martins, who is clearly not American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the next most workable category after this one is Category:Afro-Brazlian Latter Day Saints, but I am not sure we would get beyond the Martins father and son with that one. Category:Brazilian Latter Day Saints only has 17 articles. I guess Alex Boyé goes in Category:Black British Latter Day Saints, but I can't figure out anyone else to put in it. We can easily put people like Ezekiel Ansah into the list at the article, but we would be going against the long consensus on categorizing people to place him into a category that would be placing him based on his race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is Category:South African Latter Day Saints where 2/3rds are ethnically "African", but that is 2 of 3 people so it really does not need to be split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If upmerged, also upmerge to Category:African-American Christians. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - Neither the nominator nor any of the other participants has made note of or taken into consideration the crucial fact that this category is one of four sub-categories of Category:African-American Christians. There is no reason to single this one out for deletion, yet the entire focus of the discussion has been exlusively on the issue of Blacks and Mormonism. It seems to me that this CFD should be closed as "Keep" without further delay. Cgingold (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I have been convinced this is a workable category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Latin American descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: it sounds like in general, there is a desire to have both Category:People of Latin American descent and Category:People of South American descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename delete. We have existing category groupings that are by continent (e.g. Category:People of Asian descent, Category:People of Oceanian descent, and sub-continental regions (e.g. Category:People of South Asian descent). This is the only one that doesn't fit, and partially duplicates/overlaps Category:People of South American descent and Category:People of North American descent. Suggest delete. There are bigger problems of duplication between the South American/Latin American trees, but I'm not proposing to address all of those here - just cleaning up a specific corner. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have both: I see no reason why the following can't happen:
  1. People of Costa Rican descent are Latin American, but not South American
  2. People of Guyanan descent are South American, but not Latin American
  3. People of Ecuadoran descent are both South American and Latin American.
In general, I have no opposition to the creation of the South American category, just opposition to the deletion of the Latin American category. As such, I am not sure renaming is the proper avenue here, since the two categories are of differing scopes pbp 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having both is another option, but I was hoping to avoid that. In this case, I don't really see the value. Another problem is, there are contested definitions of what Latin America means - whereas South America is pretty clear cut.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, we categorize people by standard continents, not by massive cultural areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Massive cultural areas are more useful, though, and have more commonalities. A person from Colombia has more in common with someone from Costa Rica than he does from Guyana pbp 20:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That statement carries a lot of assumptions. It may be true, but not convinced it's useful in this scheme.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have both (i.e. Keep and create South American category) as per User:Purplebackpack's comments. Mayumashu (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename People should read the category contents. It includes articles for the Central America and Caribbean portions of North America, not just South America--the northern frontier of which is in Panama. Hmains (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I did indeed read the contents - as you'll note above, I proposed moving the central american ones to a new cat, which we be a subcat of North America- so this is a rename and a change of scope. just to me it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of continental-based categories, and one non-continental one. It's like 4 apples and an orange.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a rename but a massive change in scope. Currently its subcategories include people of Cuban, Dominican, and Mexican descent. Nations which are all in North America. And Category:People of South American descent has non-Latin subcategories such as People of Falkland Islands descent. Dimadick (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it looks like someone has already created the South american category, so I guess the nomination is now to merge these two together. And yes, I realize this is a change of scope - but this is all part of cleaning up this tree. I put together all of the different regional groupings, and the latin american one is the only one that doesn't fit. Rather than dual-maintain both a Latin American and South american category, can we just merge them to Category:People of South American descent, and then move anything needed to a central american/caribbean category as necessary? I just don't see the value in having, now, two mostly overlapping regional groupings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Most Central American countries are Latin, but not South American. However, both should be primarily container categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is their current status actually, since they both serve as container categories for various subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment by nom There is some confusion, due to the original nom and the fact that someone created the target. Thus, I've now changed this to a delete proposal. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Do not rename - This is what I would call a prima facie obvious container category. The nominator has offered no reason for deletion other than the fact that it overlaps some other categories. If that were in itself grounds for deletion, there are hundreds if not thousands of other valid categories that would need to be deleted. Cgingold (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:California Law Review people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:California Law Review people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization by a non-defining characteristic. It's also plausibly overcat by award and it's a species of "performance", since it's a type of job duty. While being on law review during law school is an honor (usually but not always a selective process) it is not "defining" of the person, even during law school. They are not made notable by their work on the law review; they are made notable after law school, and they are certainly not defined by being on law review. Moreover, it's not exactly a long-standing affiliation, like membership in a National Academy would be: It's typically one to two years. I'm choosing this one because I was at Boalt which publishes CLR, but the same reasoning applies to all the law reviews. Membership on a law review should be noted in the individual biographical entries, and the law review article should list the most prominent members. If appropriate separate lists of members might be warranted. Lquilter (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename then purge, if kept to Category:Editors of California Law Review. My comments are more directed to academic journal editorships in general, rather than to this one. Editorships tend to go to senior academics, so that this is a recognition of their eminence. I can quite believe that associate editors are NN dog's bodies to do a lot of subediting, and may not be worth having much record of in WP. Other journals have large editorial boards, and being a member of one may not be defining. This is not strictly an award, but it may be appropriate for it to be treated like one: if so, it would be listify and delete, but this may need rather fuller discussion than is possible in discussing a single journal. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Law review editorial positions do not go to senior academics. They are run by students. Typically after or during their first year in law school students apply to join law review; they may write an essay or have a nominating process in order to get on. It's considered an honor, but it's not remotely as significant as being an editor at a major peer-reviewed journal. It's also typically a one- or two-year relationship. And, the student editors do not generally have an impact on scholarship the way editors at a peer-reviewed journal can. --Lquilter (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You convince me. However, this must not be a precedent for dealing with academic peer-reviewed journals. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can we please do a generic nom and not have the same conversation 20 times? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Law review affiliation is much longer and defining than LQuilter is letting on. It is something lawyers keep on their brief law firm biographies for decades after graduation, and absolutely defines the majority of ones law school career while there. I would also point out that categories for individuals with court clerkships already exist on Wikipedia, and that a law review membership is a far more defining characteristic than a one single year clerkship (especially since these are actually with a judge not the court itself). So there is precedent for this. In addition, if we have categorization for students who were on different college sports teams, then a law review membership is the academic equivalent and is absolutely appropriate. Either we should keep the law review categories, or remove all college sports categories, where all the arguments above would also apply.
That someone is on a law review is a notable fact, supported by the volumes of the journals themselves (which are reliable references), and notability is not temporary. The fact that so many biographies explicitly name that a person was a member of a law review as a point of notable interest raises the necessity of this category.
Thirdly, changing these categories to lists would require too much duplication, as you have to use a reference to show that a person was on the review, which duplicates the reference on the main biographical page of the person, creating a situation where you are saying the exact same thing twice on two different pages. However it is perfectly natural for an institution to have its notable alumni noted on their Wikipedia page, and being on Wikipedia denotes notability. Therefore a category allows the "listing" of such review members without the duplicative nature of using a list on the pages of the individual Reviews.
Fourthly, claiming that the category should be merged or deleted merely because law reviews are run by students simply ignores the realities of legal scholarship in North America. These are the top academic journals in the field, and their place is not secondary to professional journals in other fields merely because there is a difference in how the legal field has preferred its academic backbone to develop.
I see no actual arguments here against having the categories, other than "I don't think being on a law review is all that important" and "I can't see why we need to point out membership in the category section", but no real evidence or significant policy arguments against having this category. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking your points in order:
    • "First para (1)": Keeping it on your resume/CV does not mean it's defining. Folks generally list all sorts of awards and grants and so forth on their CVs.
    • "First para (2)": I can't really speak to the athletes, but a quick thought would suggest that their affiliations are usually directly relevant to their notability. Lawyers, OTOH, achieve notability as jurists, litigators, and so forth, and rarely for their affiliation with a law review. Notability, however, even if it is because of LR, is not enough. The question is whether LR membership is a "defining" characteristic. Please see WP:OVERCAT#Award.
    • "First para (3)": "it absolutely defines the majority of ones law school career " -- I believe this is misunderstands "defining". While law review might "define" one's career while in law school in the sense that one's time is largely taken up by LR, it doesn't "define" the person in the eyes of the outside world. Also, please note that "defining" relates to the whole entry -- not just one part of the entry. So for a biographical entry, we would consider what "defines" that person in their entirety. Law review membership might define the person's time or define them to their peers during law school, but it's not going to define them to their peers once outside of law school, nor to the rest of the world. --Lquilter (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Second para": I agree LR-editorship is notable. But notability is not in question. It is whether this is a "defining" characteristic. See WP:DEFINING, the relevant section of WP:OVERCAT.
    • "Thirdly": Citing things in more than one places is not a problem. It is in fact desirable, and is one of the reasons that categories are sometimes inadvisable (as in controversial or ambiguous situations). LR membership is neither controversial nor ambiguous, so the need for a cite is not the reason that a category is a bad idea here. But having cites in two places isn't regarded as a bad thing, so it can't help the case for a category.
    • "Fourthly": I didn't claim they should be deleted because they are run by students. Please read the above thread carefully. Another editor was comparing student-editorship of Law Reviews to faculty editorship of peer-reviewed journals. I was explaining the difference.
    • Finally, you say: "I see no actual arguments here against having the categories, other than "I don't think being on a law review is all that important" and "I can't see why we need to point out membership in the category section", but no real evidence or significant policy arguments against having this category. " misstates all the arguments against the categories. Nobody has said being on a law review is unimportant. Nobody has said we don't need to point out membership. As for the policy arguments, they are present in WP:OVERCAT, which has been referenced multiple times.
--Lquilter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I obviously disagree that law review membership does not define how the world views a person's law school career, but that is a matter of opinion. If you look at the written biographies of many people who went to law school, it absolutely ranks as the defining aspect of their law school careers. You are saying it defines them to their peers, but then separate this from the outside world--which is made up largely by their peers or people from similar backgrounds. I was also responding to all above comments, not just yours, but stating that law reviews do not have the impact of journals run by professional associations or professors is not supported by anything and is pure speculation. But finally, let's take a look at OVERCAT. It dissuades categories that are a) small with no potential for growth (not relevant here, as can be seen by the more than 440 members of various law review categories); b) not defining, meaning something that articles about a person would not repeatedly claim about said person OR that something is not appropriate for a lead (when a full feature on a lawyer or politician is done, regarding their full career, law review membership will likely appear; and in a proper lead for a long article, it would absolutely be appropriate to have law review membership); c) items with only a narrow intersection (not relevant here); and so forth. None are relevant here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reading OVERCAT. Nobody is claiming the other OVERCAT issues, only "not defining". As to that, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've known many lawyers, law professors, and law students, and spend a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia working on categories, and I really, strongly feel that this is exactly a type of WP:OVERCAT by non-defining features. Notable and important, sure. Defining, not so much. I don't think of famous lawyers or jurists and think of their law review tenures or even what law reviews they were on, and frankly, I would be surprised at anyone who did. It's certainly an important topic for a resume, as is a 4.0 GPA and graduating top of the class, but none of those things constitute "defining" qualities. --Lquilter (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to disagree is fine by me, but that shouldn't be an argument for deletion. I'm saying that feature biographies on lawyers will mention either LR membership or clerkships as defining a student career and first legal successes, and we already have clerkships as a category. "Defining" means the subject wouldn't be out of place in a lead paragraph, or would be found in the general coverage of a person, which LR membership often is. So by policy, I think arguing against LR membership as defining is tenuous.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Costume Designers Guild Award winners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Costume Designers Guild Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. Per WP:OVERCAT#Award, this is overcategorization by award. Here, the two costume designers so categorized have both won other awards, including the Tony & Academy. While all of these awards are notable and worthy of lists, they are not "defining" of their subjects. Moreover, this award category actually includes multiple separate awards, so it's inaccurately named -- it includes both annual and lifetime awards. Some of the annual awards shows have their own entries with lists, and that's the better way to handle these awards. Lquilter (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another unnecessary awards category: lists do the job much better as they can place the winners in order. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am glad to see we are finally going after the clutter of award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did this before my last big wikibreak over the past 4-ish years ... quite a lot of re-growth during that time! --Lquilter (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom , OCAT, & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Winners of the Sir Arthur Clarke Award

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Winners of the Sir Arthur Clarke Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OVERCAT#Award, this is overcategorization. The award winners are already listed at Sir Arthur Clarke Award. This award, for space exploration etc., is awarded to things and people as diverse as the BBC News, science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, the Automated Transfer Vehicle, societies, scholars, and so forth. While the award is lovely and a great thing to receive, it is not a defining quality of these diverse entities. The appropriate way to handle them is already in place -- the list. Lquilter (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another unnecessary awards category: lists do the job much better as they can place the winners in order. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another award category we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom , OCAT, & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Whistleblowers charged under Espionage Act of 1917

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I have also listified it in the "see also" section of Espionage Act of 1917 in case anyone wants to develop this further. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Whistleblowers charged under Espionage Act of 1917 to Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The identification of those charged as whistleblowers is not all that clear-cut, and I would imagine that for instance the identification of Bradley Manning as a whistleblower is contested. Indeed, the only subset that is sharply defined are those who passed information to specific foreign governments (e.g. Jonathan Pollard). At any rate it seems to me that, if there are to be subcategories, they need to be thought through a bit further. Note that both categories involved are up for speedy renaming. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that defining "whistleblowers" can be problematic, it's not so problematic that we don't routinely use that terminology in the media and as a self-identification and as a source of advocacy for organizations on behalf of whistleblowers. ... That aside, I think it is useful to separate the early 20th century charges (mostly anarchists and political undesirables) from those charged recently by the Obama Administration. If the substantive issues for which people are charged seems inappropriate, somehow, then perhaps it would be better to classify them by the initial charging Administration? --Lquilter (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. While I would like to support its retention, I feel that identification of an accused as a whistleblower (and hence to be applauded, rather than condemned) is an issue of POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The "whistleblowers" sub-section seems to be a case of POV pushing, specifically trying to say "see this law was used to go after people who were doing good things like whistle-blowing". Now if it was "snitches charged under" you would see the problem, but "whistleblower" is just the term for a snitch you approve of, or maybe "snitch" is the term for a whistleblower who you disaprove of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; sensible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When all is said and done, I suppose I have mixed feelings about this category. I have no real objection to keeping it or I would have nominated it when I dealt with the related categories. I think Lquilter made some very useful comments; at the same time, those who support merging also raised some good points. In the end, I think perhaps it might be best to convert the category to a List page. Cgingold (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kapamilya Stars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Kapamilya Stars to Category:ABS-CBN Corporation talents
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Kapamilya" is an informal word used to name TV personalities of ABS-CBN. -WayKurat (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree for your immediate suggestion and it seems the words are informal. I also suggest that instead of ABS-CBN Corporation talent, I also consider for renaming to ABS-CBN talents.
    • Strong move: It reeks too much of COI and lack of professionalism or formality. Given the original editor's editing style and penchant for being a "typical" Filipino showbiz fanatic, I'd say a move should be done. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No move needed. Category should be deleted. The category is clearly created by a fan of the ABS-CBN network. One side of a strong network rivalry in the Philippines. The said network rivalry is very evident in the filmography tables also where fans of one network would specify the network in the 'Notes' column of an actor's filmography table or alternatively would create a separate 'Network' column on the filmography table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Francis (talk • contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Black Nova Scotian descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The difference between these two cats is not clear. The header on Category:Black Nova Scotians says "This is a category for Black Nova Scotians, those of full Black Nova Scotian ancestry or of partial ancestry who self-identify themselves as Black Nova Scotian. For people of partial ancestry whose self-identity is not verifiable see Category:People of Black Nova Scotian descent." Why is self-identity important here? I find it strange that we categorize some people based on something that they themselves haven't signed up to. I think we should categorize based on what sources say - if they say X is a black nova scotian, he goes into the box; otherwise, not. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both and merge to Category:Nova Scotian people of African descent. This is the normal format for dual ethnicity categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Black Nova Scotian has a special meaning here, as a defined ethnic group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but maybe delete. This category contains people like Dwayne Johnson "the Rock", who would not fit in the targer because he has never lived in Nova Scotia. His father is a Black Nova Scotian, his mother of Samoan origin, but he is an American and only of those descents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nova Scotian is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality: are we going to have Category:Floridian people of New York Jewish descent and the like next? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we had New York Jews as an article, your comparison might work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should delete Category:People of Black Nova Scotian descent instead? I'm not sure "descent of" in this case is defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we do have Nova Scotian Settlers (Sierra Leone) as an article which suggets for some people it is defining. On the other hand, I am not sure it is really defining for Dwayne Johnson, but it is clear that Johnson is not Black Nova Scotian, anymore than a child of an African-American father and a German mother, born, raised and always resident in Germany is an African-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Espionage charges for leaking under Obama

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 – Fayenatic London 13:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Espionage charges for leaking under Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Even if this wasn't rather poorly named, the fact remains that it's far too narrow to serve as an acceptable category. Cgingold (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletemerge Even though the only member article says that seven people have been thus prosecuted (thus implying at least six other possible members), this seems extremely WP:POINTy. Perhaps someone could give an argument for dividing up Category:Persons charged under Espionage Act of the 1917 by administration, but as it is this wouldn't be the form of the name I would use. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I commented above on the whistleblowers subcategory. I think given the fairly wide range of times and purposes of use of the Espionage Act that it would actually be useful to subcategorize them. I was agnostic on whether it's better to do it by substantive charge or initial charging Administration, but on reflection I'm now leaning towards Administration because it'll just be easier, and it'll give a sense of the use anyway. It's also the sort of thing that is studied, and is studied on use by Administration. This is probably not the best form for the category though. --Lquilter (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, which ought to be its parent. That does not have enough articles to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Peterkingiron.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Peterkingiron. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Peterkingiron. The parent only has 48 articles and is in no need of splitting by administration. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vanderbilt Law Review people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Merge to parent category of Category:Vanderbilt University Law School alumni GrapedApe (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The category will grow over time, as there have been thousands of Vanderbilt alumni that were also Review members. It's also a category that is of public interest and separates a specifically definable subset of people--if athletes can be subcategorized, why not the top academic individuals of the student body? Law review members are the academic equivalent of athletes at universities, so it makes sense to follow that precedent. This category also encourages Review membership to be included on upcoming pages or on current pages where it is appropriate, which could be something that adds quality details to existing pages.Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Also, the Vanderbilt Law Review is one of the top law reviews in the United States, and therefore membership in it is notable enough to be a subject for categorization on the pages of individuals in the category.Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinion and irrelevant.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is according to the Washington and Lee University School of Law index, which rates it at #20 globally in terms of combined score. That's not opinion, it's fact :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh. No it's a fact that Washington and Lee University School of Law index "rates it at #20 globally in terms of combined score," it's an opinion that it's "one of the top law reviews in the United States."--GrapedApe (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, let me rephrase this then: it is one of the top law reviews in the United States according to the leading legal journal ranking organization. :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • "The leading legal journal ranking organization" is opinion. Also, [citation needed]. You may want to review WP:V.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is the only ranking organization, I think that makes it the leading one, no? Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • No. Leading implies that it is better than others, so if there are no others, then how can it be leading?--GrapedApe (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider procedural close and request a renomination of all of Category:Law review editors- no reason is given to single out Vanderbilt. Either defend why this one should go and the rest should stay, or nominate all of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated the one that I saw in my watchlist. You do it.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll support but am not going to do the whole tree myself. ... I'm still reacquainting myself with the cfd process. In the meantime I posted a note on the creator's category; these are all recently created, so I think that some explanation of categories versus lists could solve the problem. --Lquilter (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose in that case, oppose, since no case has been made to make a special exception here. We should do all or nothing, and this was never framed as a "test" nomination. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd delete them all. Original founders of a couple of the most notable law reviews (I'm thinking Harvard) are likely notable and defined in part by that affiliation, but by far those who work on the law reviews are not "defined" that way. Oftentimes we need a test case or two to get the reasoning out and then can approach the whole tree. --Lquilter (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comment doesn't make any sense. The founders of law reviews are rarely on Wikipedia, as they lived a very long time ago and Wikipedia doesn't spend much time looking up old lawyers to see if they are notable :) Law reviews also change their names and structure over time, and are not static institutions. Stating that Harvard is one of the only notable law reviews is pure speculation based in a lack of information--there are thousands of reviews, of which a handful are notable, but that handful includes about twenty reviews in the US, some in Canada, and some in Australia; along with their counterparts in Europe. The editors of a law review select, edit, and produce the articles of every issue, working hand in hand with the authors the entire time, and are the review itself for the years they are a part of it.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that general affiliation with a law review is not a defining attribute of all the people who have ever been on the law review. Founding a law review is perhaps a more defining attribute, but even then I'm not too sure. A lot of faculty have founded law reviews & for that matter other journals & it wouldn't really be a defining attribute for them. I'm well-aware of how law reviews are edited. But even the chief editor of a law review is not going to have as significant a stamp on the direction of the overall LR as a chief editor of a typical peer-reviewed journal -- the activities and roles are too different. As for my assertion about Harvard versus other LRs, consider it dicta; it's really not central to the point. --Lquilter (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is just not true, a LR is absolutely driven in character by its membership, and the kinds of articles accepted each year (including what special issues are produced) is a reflection of its current membership. The direction is more in flux, but the impact of review editors is the same. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's clearly overcategorization to begin categorizing people by every affiliation they have. Law Review is at most a two-year appointment for folks, and while it's an honor that will be posted on resumes, it is not "defining" of the people involved. Not even during law school is it "defining". --Lquilter (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not temporary. Either membership is notable or it is not, and according to Wikipedia protocols it is as there are reliable references that can support it (if only the review itself). After all, going to law school itself is only a 3 year relationship, and by your definition that wouldn't be notable either. Law reviews are similar to major college sports teams, which have precedent for categories on Wikipedia.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not about notability. This is about whether something is "defining", which is a stricter standard. Please read WP:OVERCAT. --Lquilter (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Instead of repeating myself I'll just ask you to see my argument below about LR's being defining, and what "defining" is defined as (sic) in the OVERCAT document. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename then purge, if kept to Category:Editors of Vanderbilt Law Review. My comments are more directed to academic journal editorships in general, rather than to this one. Editorships tend to go to senior academics, so that this is a recognition of their eminence. I can quite believe that associate editors are NN dog's bodies to do a lot of subediting, and may not be worth having much record of in WP. Other journals have large editorial boards, and being a member of one may not be defining. This is not strictly an award, but it may be appropriate for it to be treated like one: if so, it would be listify and delete, but this may need rather fuller discussion than is possible in discussing a single journal. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Law review editorial positions do not go to senior academics. They are run by students. Typically after or during their first year in law school students apply to join law review; they may write an essay or have a nominating process in order to get on. It's considered an honor, but it's not remotely as significant as being an editor at a major peer-reviewed journal. It's also typically a one- or two-year relationship. And, the student editors do not generally have an impact on scholarship the way editors at a peer-reviewed journal can. --Lquilter (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Law review affiliation is much longer and defining than LQuilter is letting on. It is something lawyers keep on their brief law firm biographies for decades after graduation, and absolutely defines the majority of ones law school career while there. I would also point out that categories for individuals with court clerkships already exist on Wikipedia, and that a law review membership is a far more defining characteristic than a one single year clerkship (especially since these are actually with a judge not the court itself). So there is precedent for this. In addition, if we have categorization for students who were on different college sports teams, then a law review membership is the academic equivalent and is absolutely appropriate. Either we should keep the law review categories, or remove all college sports categories, where all the arguments above would also apply.
That someone is on a law review is a notable fact, supported by the volumes of the journals themselves (which are reliable references), and notability is not temporary. The fact that so many biographies explicitly name that a person was a member of a law review as a point of notable interest raises the necessity of this category.
Thirdly, changing these categories to lists would require too much duplication, as you have to use a reference to show that a person was on the review, which duplicates the reference on the main biographical page of the person, creating a situation where you are saying the exact same thing twice on two different pages. However it is perfectly natural for an institution to have its notable alumni noted on their Wikipedia page, and being on Wikipedia denotes notability. Therefore a category allows the "listing" of such review members without the duplicative nature of using a list on the pages of the individual Reviews.
Fourthly, claiming that the category should be merged or deleted merely because law reviews are run by students simply ignores the realities of legal scholarship in North America. These are the top academic journals in the field, and their place is not secondary to professional journals in other fields merely because there is a difference in how the legal field has preferred its academic backbone to develop.
I see no actual arguments here against having the categories, other than "I don't think being on a law review is all that important" and "I can't see why we need to point out membership in the category section", but no real evidence or significant policy arguments against having this category. The above arguments do not show significant knowledge of law reviews nor of their frequent use as notable facts on Wikipedia (sometimes as one of the only facts on a page). Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point-by-point response is above in the CLR people category discussion, but to sum up, Jeremy112233, please review WP:OVERCAT, particularly WP:DEFINING. The most important point is that categorization is not based on the standard "notability" but on the standard "defining". Whether law review membership is notable or not, it is most certainly not "defining". --Lquilter (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OVERCAT does not apply, in repetition of my statement for the other entry on this page: OVERCAT dissuades categories that are a) small with no potential for growth (not relevant here, as can be seen by the more than 440 members of various law review categories); b) not defining, meaning something that articles about a person would not repeatedly claim about said person OR that something is not appropriate for a lead (when a full feature on a lawyer or politician is done, regarding their full career, law review membership will likely appear; and in a proper lead for a long article, it would absolutely be appropriate to have law review membership); c) items with only a narrow intersection (not relevant here); and so forth. None are relevant here.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading OVERCAT. Nobody is claiming the other OVERCAT issues, only "not defining". As to that, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've known many lawyers, law professors, and law students, and spend a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia working on categories, and I really, strongly feel that this is exactly a type of WP:OVERCAT by non-defining features. Notable and important, sure. Defining; not so much. I don't think of famous lawyers or jurists and think of their law review tenures or even what law reviews they were on, and frankly, I would be surprised at anyone who did. It's certainly an important topic for a resume, as is a 4.0 GPA and graduating top of the class, but none of those things constitute "defining" qualities. --Lquilter (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree is fine by me, but that shouldn't be an argument for deletion. I'm saying that feature biographies on lawyers will mention either LR membership or clerkships as defining a student career and first legal successes, and we already have clerkships as a category. "Defining" means the subject wouldn't be out of place in a lead paragraph, or would be found in the general coverage of a person, which LR membership often is. So by policy, I think arguing against LR membership as defining is tenuous.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one and all similarly named cats. Oppose merging, as category creator stated on his talk page that the cats could potentially also include faculty that was involved with a particular law review (making the cat even less defining than if only editors would be included). --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment do you now understand why I proposed a single nomination? Could someone with the power to do so, close these two and open a generic nom for all of them? The discussion above is literally repeated in two separate noms. Blurgh. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were right! I was wrong. Seriously. --Lquilter (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion of all of them is a very different conversation not covered here; many of the points would only be relevant to the smaller categories, as clearly membership to a review like Harvard or McGill's is fully definable and the exception of a school like Harvard has been included above, even if Vanderbilt and Berkeley are not considered to have important enough journals for its members to consider them definable to their careers. In addition only two categories have been listed here out of 23, which is hardly a reason to suddenly widen the conversation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, previous CFDs have gone against this idea that some schools are more special than others - regardless of "prestige". For example, Ivy School alumns was killed a while back. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with Obiwankenobi. This is not going to be defining no matter what the school. I did distinguish Harvard as possibly defining for the founders, but in no case would I agree that all *LR editors are defined by their association with the LR. --Lquilter (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the request of User:Obiwankenobi, a consolidated nom at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 2#Law review people.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It is enough to categorize the people by law school, by connection with the review is just too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ocat by award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Victorian women poets and novelists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per guidance at Wikipedia:EGRS#Other_considerations, these are last-rung-of-the-ladder categorizations that serve to ghettoize. Recommend upmerge to parents and delete. I am for now proposing to keep Category:Victorian women writers, because the head cat (which I just created),Category:Victorian writers, is likely diffusable, so there won't be an issue of ghettoization. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not convinced and definitely think it's confusing to have the "by era" in here. Poets and novelists are distinct enough that membership of and scholarship on those topics are quite different. As for Category:Women novelists by era, if we have Women novelists, "by era" is a completely useful and I would say essential way to categorize them. While folks may argue that it's not essential to distinguish gender for modern-day writers when we basically have gender-parity (in this country in some genres), no one can plausibly make that case for historical eras. --Lquilter (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any thing else to put in the 'by era' category. This would imply creating Category:18th-century women novelists as a subset of Category:18th-century novelists and Category:18th-century women writers, and all of that as a subset of Category:18th-century writers - and more importantly, this violates the current guidance. Whether it is interesting or not for scholarship is IMHO irrelevant - as noted earlier, there are upteen things which are interesting for scholarship but which the categorization guidelines do not allow b/c of overcat or ghettoization. If you think the guidance should be changed, then join the conversation there - I also think it should be changed - but until then these last-rungs have to go - the guidance is clear on that point. FWIW I moved the novelists by era nomination below, so you can move your comment there and vote separately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The whole "by era" for women novelists never made sense. I just noticed that this is supposed to be limited to the United Kingdom and the British Empire, so maybe it should be made a sub-cat of ;Category:British women writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Poems and novels are distinct. "Poets" and "novelists" are not nearly as distinct. There is a high level of overlap as we see with Emily Bronte where in the opening line we are told "Emily Jane Brontë (pron.: /ˈbrɒnti/;[1][2] 30 July 1818 – 19 December 1848) was an English novelist and poet,". It is much easier to categorize literature by genre than to categorize its creators by the genre they created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Victorian women writers. If the distinction between poets and novelists is meaningless for the subject, then simply discard the separate categories. Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women novelists by era

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Women novelists by era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale - (moved from above) Only one member (up for deletion above) and likely no scope for expansion. After the brouhaha, I don't see us creating further gendered/novelist/by century cats in the novelist tree. We have Category:Women writers by historical period and Category:Women writers by century, slicing this further by gender+novelists+time period is IMHO a step too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this has poetential to develop as an actual tree. Its one category is supposed to be limited to the UK and British Empire, so it would seem that it would better work as a sub-cat of Category:British women novelists even if kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization with, somewhat ironically, too little content. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category seems to have been created to simply house Category:Victorian women novelists. There was no need for that as Parent categories Category:Victorian women writers and Category:Victorian novelists are connected to better developed category trees. Dimadick (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, why is Emily Brontë in the "women novelist" category, while Anne Brontë and Charlotte Brontë in the general purpose "women writers"? Dimadick (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because categories are formed by users pro-actively filling them, and no one has proactively tries to fill out all the Brontes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1&oldid=1074811496"