Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Category:Bewitched actors: Reply |
m [t. 1] fix font tags linter errors |
||
| (324 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<noinclude><div class="boilerplate
{| width = "100%"
|-
!
!
|}
</div></noinclude>
Line 13:
Thank you for your cooperation.
-->
====[[:Category:Supermodels]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''SPEEDY DELETED''', recreation of deleted category. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Delete / Block''' as [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_11#Category:Supermodels_to_Category:Models|recreated content]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete / Block''' per nom. "Supermodel" has become a meaningless word, and even when it was used less profligately it had major definition and POV problems. [[User:ReeseM|ReeseM]] 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Indian Kids Actors]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' merge. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Indian child actors]], as duplicate.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 15:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Songs Performed on "Make Your Own Kind Of Music"]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Delete''', as categorization by [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|trivial characteristic]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', subject matter way too minor to warrant a category. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Trivia. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', personally never heard of "Make Your Own Kind Of Music" until now. [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]<sup>[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]</sup> 15:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Canadian Americans ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' no consensus. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' per following:
:'''Merge''' '''[[:Category:Canadian Americans]]''' (in part) into [[:Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States]]
:'''Merge''' '''[[:Category:Canadian Americans]]''' (in part) into [[:Category:Americans of Canadian descent]]
: Possible '''Merge''' [[:Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States]] into [[:Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States]] and '''rename''' [[:Category: Canadians living in the United States]].
: Consider '''Delete''' [[:Category:Canadian emigrants]]
:Supposedly, [[:Category:Canadian Americans]] was nominated for deletion in the past (and no consensus was reached), but I couldn't find the discussion on the archive link provided. I came across these several related cats. the other day when trying to categorize someone. I can't figure out the nuances between them. The person at the help desk couldn't offer me more clarification and suggested that I post here.
:I think there are two major distinctions to consider:
::(1) People who were born and raised in Canada but live in the United States -- this grouping represents the current [[:Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States]] and [[:Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States]], which I propose be merged and renamed; and
::(2) Americans of Canadian (including French Canadian) descent, which means that one or both parents were born in Canada, but the individual was not -- this grouping becomes [[:Category:Americans of Canadian descent]], which would now be the appropriate subcat under [[:Category:People of Canadian descent]] rather than the current hodge-podge entry, [[:Category:Canadian Americans]]. (Note: The cat [[:Category:Americans of French Canadian descent]] is under-used; it should be a subcat here.)
:The subcat [[:Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States]] is problematic because it presumes access to information that, except for the most public of figures, will not readily be known. Also, the intro for [[:Category:Canadian Americans]] states: "People who work in the United States, but still consider themselves Canadians only, and do not intend to settle permanently in the United States or apply for citizenship should be classed as expatriates." Are we reading people's minds now? How do we know what someone's intentions are? Or even if they hold dual citizenship?
:Also, [[:Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States]] is a subcat of [[:Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States]]. I'm not sure that makes sense. Consider [[:Category: Canadians living in the United States]] as an alternative.
:Finally, [[:Category:Canadian emigrants]] is empty except for the subcat [[:Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States]].
--[[User:Vbd|Vbd]] 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - See [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 31]] for a debate on "expatriate" and "emigrant" categories that implicitly includes "immigrant" categories. Other people make some strong distinctions between "expatriate" and "emigrant", as "expatriate" is supposedly for someone who will return to his or her native country and "emigrant" is for someone who will become a citizen of his or her new country of residence. However, distinguishing between the two is impractical (as a review of the articles in [[:Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States]] and [[:Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States]] will reveal). My suggestion would be to consider having an "expatriates and emigrants" category. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Point of clarification: The word "emigrant" refers to a person who leaves their home country to live in another country; it is used from the perspective of the home country ("I emigrated from Canada to the U.S."). The word "immigrant" refers to a person who takes up permanent residence in a new country; it is used from the perspective of the new country ("I am an immigrant to the U.S."). They are two sides of the same coin. An expatriate is someone who lives outside of their native country. Trying to draw a distinction between who is a "Canadian immigrant to the U.S." and who is a "Canadian expat in the U.S." is tricky because it requires parsing INS status and the unknowable intentions of individuals. See new proposed '''rename''' added above: [[:Category:Canadians living in the United States]].--[[User:Vbd|Vbd]] 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*[[Owen Hargreaves]] is a famous Canadian emigrant, so I think the underpopulation of [[:Category:Canadian emigrants]] should be rectified, instead of the category being deleted. However, it should be '''renamed''' to [[:Category:People from Canada]] per convention. [[:Category:Canadian Americans]] is an intersection of two categories, but there are enough of the type that we can '''keep it''' and make it a subcat of [[:Category:People from Canada]]. The other categories are overcategorizations that should be '''Deleted'''. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as the nomination as a whole has been made. '''Comments''' agree with dividing [[:Cat:Canadian Americans]] into those who are immigrants and those with Canadian parentage but do not support merging expats who have not changed citizenship with those who have as one the fundamental ways of categorizing people on wiki is based on citizenship. disagree wholly that these categories are anything to do with intentions - it is quite simple, reference in the article of the person having gained citizenship puts them as an immigrant and otherwise they are an expat (the citizenship cat page is a subcategory of the expat page as all immigrants were once expats). this nomination should be split up into two or three shouldn t it?? - it has several parts to it [[User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': Seems to me that all the other cases being mentioned here are subcategories of the general category, and there are going to be categories not covered here. (I know Canadian citizens born in Britain, South Africa, Hong Kong, and the United States who are working and/or have moved permanently to the US. You're assuming a small discreet set of cases, but the reality is more of a spectrum. A general category can include the special cases not covered by the common subcategories. [[User:Avt tor|Avt tor]] 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::No one denies that Canadians are everywhere. The question is whether the categories, as they stand, help readers navigate through Wikipedia. Since they are so confusing, they cannot possibly be doing that. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 02:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - I wrote the offending blurb about "intending to become a citizen", and I can see now why it was wrong. That being said, I was trying to keep some very different groups separated. There is a big difference between a Canadian hockey player who plays for a US team and therefore lives there for a few months of the year, or a Canadian actor who has moved to LA for good and has US citizenship, and raised their children there. "Canadian immigrants to the US" should be limited to naturalized US citizens born in Canada. "Canadian expats in the US" should include any other Canadian person living or working in the US. "Canadian Americans" is a problem because it is so vague. I wouldn't object to renaming it "Americans of Canadian decent" to show how it is different from the other two. But that would break with the conventions set by the other ethnic groups in the US categories, so I don't think it would last. [[User:Kevlar67|Kevlar67]] 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::User:Kevlar, i agree wholly with what you re saying and am at present by hand weeding out expats from the [[:Category:Canadian Americans]] list. i m also putting naturalized citizens into [[:Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States]] and wish once immigrants are listed separately (but as a linked sub-category) to rename all Fooian(-)Hooians to Fooians of Hooian descent, as you suggest here [[User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:My Name Is Earl actors ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename, insufficient consensus for deletion. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:My Name Is Earl actors]]''' to [[:Category:My Name Is Earl cast members]]
*{{{3|'''Rename''' and prune to limit to recurring actors only, and exclude guest stars, per a number of recent precedents on TV show actor categories. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Keep''' It seems to by named properly looking at [[:Category:Actors by comedy television series]]. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to cast or cast members. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename to cast''' The recent trend in naming of these sorts of categories on cfd discussions has been to use cast instead of actors to make clear it doesn't apply to guest stars. This is a somewhat recent change in consensus on how to name these categories (assuming they are kept - whether or not to delete them is another can of worms entirely). [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to cast. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I'll open that can of worms! These have cropped up on CFD with increasing regularity recently—looking at these debates we can see that the reasons for deletion or retention are many and varied. Personally, I regard categorisation as the wrong vehicle for this purpose. The main article on the TV programme can easily contain a list of the cast, individual articles on individual actors can contain a list of their acting credits. In my view this is far more satisfactory than using categories.
:(ducks for cover)
:[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Categorizing people based on every role they've every played is ridiculous and will just be cluttercruft like when Cindy Crawford had nearly a hundred categories based on all her past jobs. Delete like Scooby-Doo actors[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Scooby-Doo_actors] or at least rename to minimum the clutter. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Would clutter category section to do it for all tv series and movies. Explicit links in cast/roles sections much better.--[[User:Per Abrahamsen|Per Abrahamsen]] 12:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. See ''Bewitched'' and ''Austin Powers'' below. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or rename if not deleted. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per Xiner. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''rename''' categories are neater and more consistent than lists. [[User:Mr. Stabs|Mr. Stabs]] 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::How so? Take a reasonably well-known actress - let's choose [[Meryl Streep]]. According to IMDB, she has acted in sixty-two films - that means something in the region of sixty-two+ categories - neater? Let's look a less prolific actor - [[Will Smith]]. Twenty-six films, twenty-six+ categories - neater? Let's bring out the heavy artillery - let's try [[John Wayne]]. One hundred and seventy-two films, one hundred and seventy-two+ categories - neater?
::Note that these numbers exclude tv appearances, which may add appreciably to the totals. Also note that John Wayne, despite his impressive statistics, is by no means the most prolific actor in cinema.
::Now, of course, I'm being a little silly here, but I think that my point is a decent one. Categories are meant to be an aid; even if you prune each actor's categories down (and how you do that is a whole other debate), with 20, 30, 40, or more on a page, who is really going to be helped? Simply put, all this additional clutter is of no use to man nor beast. I can understand the rationale behind the attempt to use categories, but it simply one of these things that doesn't work in practice.
::[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Delete''' ... I couldn't have possibly said it better than Xdamr. These actor categories are out of hand. Most TV Shows and movies that have categories like this have a list that's a lot tidier than categories and usually has more information to boot. --[[User:Colage|Colage]] 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Xdamr. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
*Reaffirm '''delete''' after discussion. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''note to closer''' Doczilla has already !voted/commented. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - These actor categories are not feasible. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Half Man Half Biscuit albums and EPs]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Rename''' to [[:Category:Half Man Half Biscuit albums]], convention of [[:Category:Albums by artist]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Series broadcast by Animax ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' delete. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Series broadcast by Animax}}<br/>
{{{3|If I'm reading the [[Animax]] article correctly, it is not the originator of these shows, just a network that broadcasts them. We should not categorize shows based on their syndicated broadcasters. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Delete''' Trivia. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Consensus at Wikiproject Television has also strongly supported only categorizing television series by their originating, branding networks, not by syndicated or other secondary broadcasters. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per precedent, e.g. Sci-Fi channel program category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - the vast majority of the articles in this category contain shows which were all originated, branded and originally produced by Animax, including ''[[Ultra Maniac]]'', ''[[Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex]]'' (and 2nd GIG), ''[[Aishiteruze Baby]]'', ''[[Galaxy Angel]]'', and several others. The Animax network produces and creates several original programs regularly, each month, therefore the aforementioned concerns certainly does not in anyway apply here, so if it is simply a matter of certain content, then those particular shows which do not apply can simply be removed from the category. In ''several'' other similar categories like [[:Category:Shows on Adult Swim]], [[:Category:Shows on Toonami]], [[:Category:Cartoon Network shows]], [[:Category:Category:Cartoon Network shows]], [[:Category:YTV shows]] there are several programs which were only later broadcast on these networks and which were never the original broadcasters of these shows and with absolutely no prior affiliation with them, yet no concerns were never raised regarding these categories. [[User:Ganryuu|<span style="color:darkblue;">Ganryuu</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Ganryuu|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:*The Animax article does not make it clear that Animax is the originating broadcaster of any of these shows. As far as the other categories you mention, first, in my opinion those shows should also be devoid of programs for which they are a secondary broadcaster and second, the status of one category has nothing to do with the status of another. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Yes, the Animax article (where, I should note, I am one of the main contributors) does make it clear that it is indeed the original broadcasters and producers of these shows, see History section: ''"It has been involved in the production of several anime series, such as ..."''. See trusted references such as [[Anime News Network]] (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/company.php?id=506) where the numerous original broadcasts as aired by Animax are listed. Animax has been directly involved in the production and original broadcasts of several original programs and anime TV series, noted by numerous sources, as I mentioned earlier. For even further confirmation, see also the [[:ja:アニマックス|Japanese interwiki]], where this topic has also been similarly thoroughly expanded. If it is merely a content dispute, then please feel free to bring this up on the main talk page. [[User:Ganryuu|<span style="color:darkblue;">Ganryuu</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Ganryuu|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep if renamed to [[:Category:Original series by Animax]] or something similar.''' This will make it very clear what the cateogry is for, and greatly reduce the amount of work required to maintain it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:darkblue;">日本穣</span>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:blue;">Talk</span>]] <span style="color:darkblue;">to</span> [[WP:JA|Nihon]][[WP:MOS-JA|<span style="color:darkgreen;">joe</span>]]</small></sup> 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' trivia. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Madison Wisconsin based companies]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' merge. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Upmerge''' into [[:Category:Companies based in Wisconsin]], splitting '''Wisconsin companies''' into dozens of small categories would be a mistake, it would make navigation worse, not better.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' Overcategorization. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I think that with 150 in the parent category, it isn't unreasonable to split off the 15 in the state's capital and 2<sup>nd</sup> largest city. I would not want to see the rest split out by city in ones and twos. ~ [[User:BigrTex|<
*'''Upmerge''' BigrTex's argument is unpersuasive - ''he'' may not wish to, but someone else may and consistency in categories is very important. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''', splitting off this city is an invitation to split the rest. Such localized divisions are better handled as lists, either stand-alone or within larger topics. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Scary Movie characters ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' merge. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Scary Movie characters}}<br/>
{{{3|'''Upmerge'''. The category contains only one character, [[Cindy Campbell]], the only notable character of the ''Scary Movie'' series. Other characters would suit being listed, perhaps. Typically, fictional characters go straight into "by genre" and "by medium" categories if they cannot be grouped with a large number of similar character articles. ~[[User:Zythe|<b
*'''Delete''' in the absence of a suggested upmerge destination. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**The suggestion was implicit as I had noted that ''Typically, fictional characters go straight into "by genre" and "by medium" categories if they cannot be grouped with a large number of similar character articles.'' So for clarity, the Scary Movie category on the Cindy Campbell article should be replaced with {{cat|Scary Movie}}, {{cat|Fictional comedy characters}} and {{cat|Film characters}}.~[[User:Zythe|<b
*'''Upmerge''' Overcategorization. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete and upmerge''' any useful information into the respective Scary Movie articles. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Use explicit links in article.--[[User:Per Abrahamsen|Per Abrahamsen]] 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Environmental organizations based in Vermont]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' merge. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Upmerge''' into [[:Category:Environmental organizations based in the United States]], which is much too small for a 50 way split.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' Overcategorization. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' per nom as overcategorisarion. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* comment: The cat can't handle a 50-way split, but it would make much more sense & be helpful to do a few subcats on types of organizations (land trusts, research institutes, advocacy groups, etc.). --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Given the fact that Vermont seems to be home to many of these movements in the US, I'm not convinced that it should not have a sub category. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
**[[:Category:Associations in Vermont]], which is currently underpopulated, can link them at the state level. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge,''' overcategorization that will just hinder navigation. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Upmerge'''. Overcategorization. Vermont may have more than its share, but what about the other forty-nine states? It is not practical to break environmental organizations down by state. There are 89 members in {{cl|Environmental organizations based in the United States}}. That would give less than two per state, on average. Way too small for each state to have its own category. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Hybrid music genres ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:Hybrid music genres]]''' to [[:Category:Fusion music genres ]]
*{{{3|'''Rename''', ''Hybrid'' is incorrect terminology. ''[[Fusion (music)|Fusion]]'' is the term used by critics and music taxonomists, not ''hybrid''. For example, [[jazz fusion]]. ~<span style="font: small-caps 14px times;"><b>[[User:SwitChar|<
*'''Rename''' per Switch. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' fusion is the correct term, not hybrid --[[User:LordJumper|LordJumper]] 14:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose rename for now''' pending verification by external sources that hybrid is not the preferred term and that the terms mean the same thing. The [[Fusion (music)|Fusion]] article lacks sources. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Motorcyclists ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' delete (both). [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Motorcyclists}}<br/>
:{{lc|Fictional motorcyclists}}<br/>
Rarely is riding a motorcycle a [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization|defining characteristic]], at least for real people. Any usefulness these categories might have, though, is diminished by the inclusion of casual, and even one-time riders. Few of the real-life member articles even mention motorcycles (though most of the fictional members do). We have [[:Category:Motorcycle racers]] for professional riders, and could create a fictional counterpart if needed. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Motorcyclists, but '''keep''' Fictional motorcyclists. If there is already a section for professional motorcyclists, then the larger category should go, but motorcycling is a defining characteristic of - just say - the [[Biker Mice from Mars]], though they are not "professional" cyclists. ~<span style="font: small-caps 14px times;"><b>[[User:SwitChar|<
*'''Delete both''' - The real people are notable for their careers (acting, writing, fighting the [[Ottoman Empire]], etc), not for their mode of transportation. Many of the fictional characters are only loosely defined by their mode of transportation, although the motorcycle is clearly tied into some characters' identities (e.g. [[Ghost Rider]]). Both categories should be deleted. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' per Dr S. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' per nom. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''', trivia with no possible way to objectively limit inclusion to those for whom motorcycles may actually be meaningful. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep, but restrict to articles that notably mention motorcycling''' This appears to be a natural subcategory of [[:Category:People associated with sports and hobbies]], which sorts people by notable association with a sport/hobby. Note that this is not restricted to simply professionals or amateur racers, for example, but also includes people who have a ''notable'' influence or interest in the hobby. So under that context, Motorcyclists appears to be a reasonable subdivision.
:However, the category needs to be cleaned up, removing articles for people who are ''not'' notably involved with motorcycling. The category description likewise should be tightened. Basically an article should only appear in this category if there is a serious, notable inclusion of motorcycling. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Certainly the category should be kept, especially if some of the other sub-categories of [[:Category:People associated with sports and hobbies]] are kept. Delete this and you must delete others too based on the same criteria of fairness. Those too link to non-notable people for the category title. Maybe only people wellwell known as motorcyclists should be included, for instance, from my knowledge, [[T.E. Lawrence]], [[Jay Leno]], [[Steve McQueen]] and [[Douglas Bader]] are/were keen motorcyclists and deserve a place on this list though I don't know about others. Maybe there should be a reference to their motorcycling on their main article page for them to be added to this category, but this has to do with criteria for inclusion not deletion. Keep it. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
**Which other categories should be deleted if this one is? And if you think that only those "well known as motorcyclists" should be included, you're really supporting a different category, as "Motorcyclists" is obviously lacking any limiting language. What should such a category be named so that it targets those "well known" for this, and how should that "well known" threshold for inclusion be identified?
**A side comment: [[:Category:Motorcycle racers]] is a subcategory of this, and should be kept. While not everyone who may be included may be notable ''for'' racing motorcycles (such as [[Steve McQueen]]), that they have done it is a notable fact for them regardless because simply racing motorcycles ''can'' make people notable. By contrast, no one is notable simply because they are a motorcycle rider, without more, and it isn't a presumptively important fact. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' per nom. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I'm sorry, you are stark raving mad. Being a motorcyclist is more than choosing a method of transportation. It is also more than having professionals, paid to race/compete on motorcycles. As above, many notable people, eg [[Ewan McGregor]], [[T.E. Lawrence]], [[Steve McQueen]] and [[Douglas Bader]] rode motorcycles, to such an extent they were famous for that in addition to their prime notability. Take the first two on My very brief list, McGregor made the film/series "the long way round" - he is a famous actor, but his "motorcycling" is more than say him using a car to go to work. Similarly. Steve McQueen famously competed in many events, despite being a very famous actor, he even funded [[On Any Sunday]], he rode for the US in the [[International Six Days Enduro|ISDT]]....
**As noted above, [[Steve McQueen]] is in [[:Category:Motorcycle racers]], which no one wants to delete. As for whether "many notable people...were famous" for riding motorcycles, this category does not target only those people, nor has there been any suggestion as to how we should determine that motorcycle-related fame if such a narrower category were alternatively created. I know T.E. Lawrence died on a motorcycle because I'm a fan of the film; I've never heard anything about Ewan McGregor and motorcycles despite being a fan of many of his films. But luckily articles aren't dependant on [[WP:OR|what we think people are famous for]]. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' No more a defining characteristic than any other hobby. [[User:Honbicot|Honbicot]] 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' per [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] [[User:Cloachland|Cloachland]] 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' both. While a hobby may not be a defining characteristic, it does help to flush out a personality. Motorcycling sets a person apart from the norm. It seems to me that Wikipedia is about spreading knowledge and any facts that help us learn more about the make up of a person can only increase our comprehension. For instance, learning that King Juan Carlos of Spain is an avid motorcyclist would tend to mold your opinion of him. I vote Keep to increase awareness.[[User:Orsoni|Orsoni]] 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Methodist missionaries in Africa ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' merge. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:[[:Category:Methodist missionaries in Africa]] into [[:Category:Christian missionaries in Africa]]
*'''Merge''' - At the moment, not enough articles are present in [[:Category:Christian missionaries in Africa]] to warrant the subdivision by subdenomination '''''and''''' by country of activity. Division by the country of activity (Cameroon, Sierra Leone, etc.) would be preferable for organizational purposes at this time. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 11:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 70 ⟶ 234:
*'''Upmerge''' per nom. Division by country unlikely to succeed as missionaries in Africa predate the countries, eg Livingstone; and the countries have mostly changed names and some have merged/split. [[User:Pc1dmn|roundhouse]] 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' per nom. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Controversies ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Controversies}}<br/>
{{{3|'''Delete''', Problematic as an umbrella cat. If its subcats could perhaps work on their own, grouping them into one category is absurd and unmanageable. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] 12:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Delete''' sub-cats may work (e.g. Sporting controversies, Royal Family controversies, Oil spillage controversies) but I doubt that too. An umbrella cat like this would be, per Dahn, unmanageable. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', I guess I just don't see the problem, looks like it's being more or less managed right now. [[User:Recury|Recury]] 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It does fulfil a somewhat useful role, but it might benefit from a batter name, although I can't think of one now. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep, but clean up''' The category description states it is "for topics explicitly about controversy, not for topics that may engender controversy." So basically articles with the word "controversy", for example, are probably ok under that definition since they are specifically about a particular controversy. However, artilces like [[The Reagans]] which are not specifically about controversy but which might include some controversial subject matter would ''not'' fall under this category. So I think the category is ok in principle, but there appear to be a number of articles that are inappropriately assigned to it. A sweep of the category's articles to remove inappropriate articles appears to be in order. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**It would have to be a weekly sweep, and no one is going to do that. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' vague, unmanageable category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]]. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' would include an unreasonably high proportion of all WP articles, and with no connection between them. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] and [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]]. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Controversies obviously exist. Therefore they are an encyclopedic subject, therefore they should be categorized. -- [[User:Freemarket|Freemarket]] 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
**You've stated two ''non sequiturs'', because [[WP:NOT|not everything that exists]] is encyclopedic, and [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization|not everything encyclopedic should be categorized]]. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as a random selection of topics from unrelated fields. [[User:Honbicot|Honbicot]] 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Missionaries to Cameroon ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:Missionaries to Cameroon]]''' to [[:Category:Christian missionaries in Cameroon]]
*{{{3|'''Rename''' - This category's contents are entirely about Christian missionaries. The word "Christian" should therefore be added to reflect that. Also, the word "to" should be changed to "in" to reflect the convention in the majority of the missionary categories. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Rename''' per nom. (See also discussion at [[Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup]]). --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' to [[:Category:Christian missionaries in Africa]] - [[Cameroon]] has a complicated history post 1900. [[User:Pc1dmn|roundhouse]] 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. I don't object to "Christian" being added, but "in" is 100% the wrong word. These were missionaries ''to'' a place, not ''in'' a place.</s> The category should ''absolutely not'' be "
**'''Comment''' I think that "in" is apppropriate, because not all missionaries in a country come from overseas. See discussion at [[Category_talk:Missionaries#.22to.22_or_.22in.22|Category talk:Missionaries#"to" or "in"]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
***Okay, I can accept that. I now '''support''' renaming but '''strongly oppose''' upmerging. I am the primary maintainer of the Cameroon-related categories, and if this gets upmerged, it will seriously hamper my ability to maintain the pages involved. Certainly there are other notable missionaries to Cameroon for whom we could have articles on Wikipedia; the reason we don't is because of our [[WP:CSB|systemic bias]] and our lack of editors from Cameroon. Please don't throw another wrench in the works for someone like me who is already spread very thin in this area. — [[User:BrianSmithson|BrianSmithson]] 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' or Rename. Overcategorization. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Treehouse of Horror episodes]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''DELETE'''. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)<br/>
Unnecessary subset of [[:Category:The Simpsons episodes]], containing one episode from each season. It should be merged. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*Delete per nomination [[User:Ulysses Zagreb|Ulysses Zagreb]] 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Listify''' This is an interesting subgrouping of episodes, but not deserving of a category. ~ [[User:BigrTex|<
:'''and Merge''' per Zythe below. ~ [[User:BigrTex|<span style="color:blue;">Bigr</span>]][[User Talk:BigrTex|<span style="color:red;">Tex</span>]] 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I'm going to give this category some benefit of the doubt. The Treehouse episodes are all notably linked to each other, and are decidedly different from normal episodes of the series. Knowing that an episode is one of the Treehouse Halloween episodes immediately tells the reader a great deal about the episode. In fact, it's probably an even more defining characteristic than, say, identifying in what season the episode took place. So since this is, in my opinion, a strong identifier for the reader of the nature of the episode, and all such episodes share very similar characteristics, and the episodes appear across the entire series in multiple seasons, and since there is little risk of overly diluting the number of categories in these articles, categorizing them as Treehouse episodes sounds reasonable to me. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**While that is true, the fact that they are TOH episodes is obvious from the episode title being "TOS" with a number :) They even appear together in the regular cat. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' category. The articles on the individual episodes are all already linked through [[Treehouse of Horror]]. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The existing <nowiki>{{Treehouse of Horror}}</nowiki> template already does the job.--[[User:Per Abrahamsen|Per Abrahamsen]] 12:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' all contents into {{cat|Halloween television specials}} which needs populating anyway.~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' cruft. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:South Park children]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary subset of [[:Category:South Park characters]], containing those characters of a certain age. It should be merged. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*South Park characters seems a bit big... [[User:Ulysses Zagreb|Ulysses Zagreb]] 09:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**Yes, but note that most articles in the 'children' cat are also already in the 'characters' cat. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><
*'''Delete''', strong precedent of "no fictional characters by age" since the South Park main cast aren't always portrayed as children. Also, childhood is in itself difficult to define. ~[[User:Zythe|<b
*'''Delete''' or merge if needed. Don't create lame categories just because one is "too big." [[User:Recury|Recury]] 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete/merge''' per nom, and per Recury. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't think the category is necessary, so I'd probably support deletion. But it does beg the question of whether or not subdividing South Park Characters would be worth pursuing. I also wanted to point out that while South Park cast ''occasionally'' are portrayed at different ages, the overwhelming amont of the time the relative ages are constant and there is a clear dividing line on the show between "kids" and "adults". The divide is both physical (eg height) and plays highly noticable roles in South Park Plots, as in many episodes the "kids" are talking or thinking in one way, while the "adults" are reacting to the same things in very different ways. So South Park is a show that probably ''could'' be subdivided into the subcategories of "children" and "adults" with very little ambiguity and in a show where the ages of the characters plays a very significant role in the plots. At the very least, an article comparing the children to the adults of South Park would make for a good read. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' unnecessary subcategory. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' unnecessary. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. That [[:Category:South Park characters]] is getting so large informs me mainly that it is overpopulated with trivia in the most basic sense. [[Mr. Adler]]?? Not to single out South Park, of course. [[Aristotle Amadopolis]], [[Stacey Carosi]]... yet nothing for [[The Gootch]]. Tsk tsk. :-) -[[User:Choster|choster]] 15:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Older versions of cartoon characters]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Basically, "cartoon series that have a spinoff with the same characters several years later, or are a spinoff of such a series". Should be a list for extra information (e.g. what series it comes from). [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*Delete becuase category doesn't make a lotof sense. [[User:Ulysses Zagreb|Ulysses Zagreb]] 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. As the classification is not well defined, it is much better covered solely in [[Older versions of cartoon characters]]. I'm not totally comfortable with the article either, but I guess it's meant as a companion to [[Younger versions of cartoon characters]]. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete and maybe listify''' I think the category definition is pretty clear; they're cartoon spin-offs of other cartoons where a significant amount of time has passed. I think [[Batman Beyond]] spinning off of [[Batman: The Animated Series]] would be another article that fits this category. That being said, this appears to be mainly an unnecessary way to try and subcategorize cartoon spinoffs by "type of spinoff", differentiating these spinoffs from cotemporaneous ones where a breakout side character goes off on their own and has their own adventures(eg [[Daria]] spinning-off of [[Beavis and Butthead]] ). [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**Touching on that, Daria was a few years older, too. Is she inclusive? '''Delete''', valueless category. Perhaps the [[All Grown Up]] article can mention [[Quack Pack]] or something, but these two shows have little connection anyway. ~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' poorly defined category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Doczilla. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Pebbles & Bam-Bam are the same characters whether infant or teen rock stars. Some of these will have separate articles, and some won't. Category won't be useful. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Fictional characters portrayed by the opposite sex]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Characters that are male but have a female voice actor, or vice versa. The reason this cat is problematic is that it requires a ten-line disclaimer at the top of characters portrayed by the opposite sex that nevertheless should not be in the category. That's not useful. Besides, the information is rather trivial and hardly defining. For instance, just about any male character under fourteen is portrayed by a female voice actor, and many cartoons use people with "weird voices" as an in-joke. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*Agree with nomination. [[User:Ulysses Zagreb|Ulysses Zagreb]] 09:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - And it's historically and culturally impossibly vague (English actors until the 18th century routinely portrayed female characters with male actors; specific theatrical traditions around the world have done likewise). And it's "characters by performance". --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 111 ⟶ 332:
**I still don't support it, but I would be happier with a category or list along the lines of ''Animated characters voiced by the opposite sex''. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''' Interesting. --<tt>[[User talk:Trogga|(]]</tt>[[User:Trogga|trogga]]<tt>[[Special:Contributions/Trogga|)]]</tt> 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I am offended at the exclusion of [[Tyler Perry]] and [[Eddie Murphy]] characters. (not my usual standard of logic, but I would probably vote delete anyway).[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete, maybe do list article''' Not a very defining category. As above, a large number of male children are voiced by female actors. Might be an ok list article, espcially if the article has an introduction that talks a bit about how and when and why male characters are voiced by females, and identifies particularly surprising examples. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', no list necessary. Most of the entries here appear to be [[voice actor]]s where the practice of having young male characters (and in some cases, older ones) be voiced by female actresses is common and not notable. [[User:Jrp|JRP]] 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as trivia (my pov admittedly!). [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]<sup>[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]</sup> 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
**This is a discussion page, so whether or not something is "pov" is irrelevant, what matters is whether this category is in the interests of wikipedia or not. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this vague, unmaintainable, and sometimes unverifiable category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I'd hate to say that any category is stupid, but the category is vague, incomplete, and not able to provide notability. It's like this category was written by a 12 year old. [[User:192.133.12.101|192.133.12.101]] 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We already have a "by mental disorder" category, and this one partially overlaps with that, and partially is just "characters who eat a lot" (Taz or Goku, anyone?) Not a useful categorization, at any rate. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' In theory, this seems like a useful subcategorization of [[:Category:Fictional characters with mental illness]], which is extremely broad, but I agree that it will probably be overrun with comical overeaters. [[:Category:People with eating disorders]] doesn't have this problem, I'm assuming. Maybe replacing the fictional cat with one reserved for anorexia and bulimia could work. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' per repeat deletion of fictional overeaters.~[[User:Zythe|<b
**You're referring to [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Category:Fictional_vegans_and_Category:Fictional_overeaters|this Nov 23 discussion]]. The category considered here is quite different, though it's no more useful unless comical overeaters are excluded. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
***As it is subjective to describe who possesses a disorder, then it cannot exist. Fictional characters by eating habits shouldn't be allowed. ''Vegans'' however are a self-identified sect with a firm definition, to be included the character must explicitly be identified as such. Perhaps the [[Mean Girls]] would think a lot of people are overeater, whereas [[Homer Simpson]] might not. Can't stay because it incorporates overeaters. This is a backdoor category recreation. ~[[User:Zythe|<b
*'''Speedy delete''' per Zythe. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' as recreation, etc. --[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' recreation. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Speedy delete''' per above. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Austin Powers actors ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Austin Powers actors}}<br/>
*'''Keep''' categories are easier to use than lists. [[User:Mr. Stabs|Mr. Stabs]] 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' Categories cannot be annotated and properly sourced. Lists can be. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Bewitched actors ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Bewitched actors}}<br/>
{{{3|}}}
Line 135 ⟶ 385:
*'''Rename''' to cast members and '''oppose deletion''' per my [[User:Tim!/Ceci n'est pas une pipe|reasoning]]. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Assuming your reasoning was the accepted guideline, how would you categorize [[Michael Caine]], and which actors would remain in these two categories? How would you explain the criteria you used for making these determinations? I'm very skeptical that what you suggest could work, and that both the partial populating of cast categories and the partial categorization of actors based on notability will be straight forward, easily maintained, and not result in a massive POV edit wars. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I note that he only appears in two series categories, both of which merit no mention in his article other than in a filmography so his absence from those categories would not be missed. As there is no category based on ''[[Alfie]]'' and no other category particularly well known for appearing in that film, probably Caine would not appear in any performance categories. Michael Caine is best known for being Michael Caine. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Would categories for film casts be acceptable to you? If so, assume that most of the films that Caine appeared in have categories. Which ones would he belong in? If film cast categories are not acceptable, why TV and not Film? -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Film series casts are acceptable, hence I am in favour of keeping these two cats, also things like Star Wars and Harry Potter where a number of actors appear in all of the films in the series. Alfie cast wouldn't make a good category. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 11:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' I think IMDB is a better resource than this type of categories. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' Bewitched actors to "Bewitched (TV series) cast members" or something similar to exclude the film actors and TV guest stars, and '''delete''' the Austin Powers category. There's simply no way to reasonably limit the inclusion of film series actors to those for whom the role was significant; ''everyone'' who appears in a film is part of its "cast." By contrast, only those who have regular roles in a TV series are "cast," making that relationship significant and capable of reasonable limitation. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::So you would allow categories for TV shows but not films. If this is where we draw the line, doesn't it seem odd that [[Dick York]] would not be categorized for ''Bewitched'' but not for ''[[Inherit the Wind]]'', that [[Agnes Moorhead]] would not be categorized for ''[[The Magnificent Ambersons (film)]]'', that [[Paul Lynde]] would not be categorized for ''[[Bye Bye Birdie]]''? That [[Rock Hudson]] is in [[:Category:Dynasty actors]] but not in a category for ''[[Giant (film)]]'', that [[Barbara Stanwyck]] is in [[:Category:The Colbys actors]] but not in any of her starring roles in films? She was nominated for four academy awards. What makes an actors TV work more significant than her film work? This problem can be easily solved by making lists out of these TV categories. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I honestly wouldn't shed a tear if ''all'' of the series actor films were deleted in lieu of lists. But yes, I do find ''less'' of a problem with TV series cast categories than categories for individual films, because having a recurring role in an ongoing TV series is more likely to be more significant for an actor than an average individual film role, and more likely to be defining of their notability (Dick York is definitely better known as "Darren Stevens" than "Bertram Cates"). The TV series cast categories are also more prone to reasonable limits than film cast categories. I also believe that it is better to limit the TV series categories to exclude guest actors, for which there is a clear consensus, than to push for outright deletion, for which there isn't. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I see the concern for article category length as a sufficient reason. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete and listify''', and do the same for all the subcategories of [[:Category:Actors by film series]]. Categorisation of actors by film will generate horrible category clutter if it spreads. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', '''Listify''' (as in "List of cast for..." for the 4 movies and 1 television series, and, if desired "Filmobraphy for..." for each actor), and cat the lists ("Category: List of casts by film", "Category: List of casts by television show", and "Category: Filmography by actor"). The parent topics are better serviced by lists. Further, the lists would be less a source of POV issues ("recurring", "regular", and "notability" need not be defined/debated) and trivial usages and/or associations. It also "levels" things. As the nom points out current practice elevates the notability television shows over that of film, theatre, and radio.<br> Last point: the ''Bewitched'' cat is as bad as the deleted and salted "Batman actors". It links two un-related production in one grouping. — [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' There is currently consensus against actor-by-film categories for individual films (see [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization]]), I am generally opposed to actor-by-TV-series categories for the same reasons (although there's not strong consensus with TV series). However, the exception is actor-by-''franchise'' categories, which accumulate actors from multiple films and television shows and other spinoffs in one category. So using Michael Caine as an example, I would definitely be opposed to [[:Category:Alfie actors]] since the entire cast list already appears in that article. However, if you wanted to view actors from ''all'' the Bewitched shows and films and spinoffs, you can't do it from a single main article because it covers multiple main articles. So [[:Category:Bewitched actors]] might be a useful way to accumulate all those actors in one place.
:Mind you, I also am aware of the concern that this might place "Bewitched" on equal footing with other films in the mind of a reader when they view the category listing. But the trade off would be that without that category, it might be more difficult for readers interested in looking at and comparing actors from the Bewitched franchise to find the information they're looking for.
:The only alternative that comes to mind would be creating a list article for the ''franchise''. That might be acceptable too, although the advantage of the category is that it's slightly easier to maintain a large number of articles in a category than a list.
:Anyway, at this point, I'm undecided on these two particular franchise nominations. For now I'll defer to whatever consensus there might be on the topic of categorizing actors from media franchises, since there are pros and cons on either side. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - I can see how it would be desirable to bundle the information for franchised properties. However, it seems that "See also" link in the heads of the lists would work for small one (2 or 3 films, plays, and/or shows). For larger ones (like ''Law & Order'' or ''Phantom of the Opera'') a cat holding the lists and explicitly related articles would be in order. This would also satisfy concerns for article size for the cast lists of long running shows. — [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom and others. The use of Categories for actors by film series (or by tv series) results in unwieldy overcategorization. Dugwiki's "franchise" argument raises an interesting point, but not enough to sway me.--[[User:Vbd|Vbd]] 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', categories simply aren't the appropriate vehicle for this type of information. --[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' these useless categories per [[:Category:Batman_actors]] precedent. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
**There are more "precedents" to keep or rename than the Batman example: most recently [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_15#Actors_to_Cast_Members]]. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' categories are consistent compared to lists. [[User:Mr. Stabs|Mr. Stabs]] 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' Using categories for cast lists does not scale, each actor would be in way to many categories.--[[User:Per Abrahamsen|Per Abrahamsen]] 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' per nom. [[User:Honbicot|Honbicot]] 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Malay diaspora ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
*[[:Category:Malay diaspora]]
*[[:Category:Arab-Malays]]
Line 173 ⟶ 451:
*[[:Category:Ukrainian-Malays]]
*[[:Category:Welsh-Malays]]
*'''Delete''' - as per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Malays]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Malays]] & [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Malays]], these categories consist of original research using a definition of Malay which is extremely broad, which has been shown in [[Talk:Malays (ethnic group)]] to be false and misleading. ([[User:
*'''Delete''' - this category has been created using a falsely broad and exagerated definition that has no verification. [[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 06:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- per nom. Most of the categories are empty anyway. - [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- per nom. [[User talk:SatuSuro|SatuSuro]] 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - per norm. I assume these categories are going to be used for another X Malays articles, which is [[WP:NOTABILITY|not notable]]. There is no academic sources support these race definition. How many X Malays categories are there going to create? — [[User:Indon|Indon]] ([[User_talk:Indon |<
*Agree deletion, there seems to be confused which way these are upposed to work: [[Giovanni van Bronckhorst]] is in the Dutch-Malays but he is Dutch of Maly descent not the way round the category says.[[User:Ulysses Zagreb|Ulysses Zagreb]] 09:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Awful misnomers and unlikely cats. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] 12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' them all, or consider dumping the 127 sub cats found here [[:Category:American people by ethnic or national origin]].--[[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' a misunderstanding - the American catories are populated categories [[User talk:SatuSuro|SatuSuro]] 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' your analogy doesn't work. ''Malay'' is not a country like America, and so its an invalid comparison. Please see [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arab_Malays]] for more details. ([[User:Caniago|Caniago]] 13:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
*'''Keep or change name'''--as with afd at [[Arab Malays]] and [[European Malays]]. However, I agree with the deletion of the empty cats for now. [[User:Mr Tan|Mr Tan]] 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - per nom. [[User:Topar|Topar]] 12:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Rhythm & Blues]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''merge'''.
:'''''Merge / Redirect''' into [[:Category:Rhythm and blues]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy merge''' No redirect. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge and yes do redirect''' as there is no reason not to. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Jewish psychologists]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Delete''', Where is the pressing need to categorize [[psychologist]]s by ethicity or religion? Why single out Jews? This is the only subcat of this kind, and I don't think we want to have any more like it.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' No need. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - The division of psychologists by religion does no appear to be warranted, as psychology practiced by Jewish people is probably going to be identical to psychology practiced by non-Jewish people. If Jewish psychologists have faced religious discrimination from other psychologists, than that should be written as an article. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom as irrelevant intersection. Listify if it interests anyone enough to do so. --20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' inappropriate to have these sort of divisions. --[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' bizarre overcategorization. If anybody comes along and starts making semi-coherent arguments for keeping this category, please let me know on my talk page, though I don't forsee that happening. — [[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps">lk</span>]] — 06:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference]] [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Jewish identity? Why is the term "Jewish" an identity to be ashamed of? Only if a named person objects to being included should we delete this article. Most personal articles describe the subject in a geographical or ethnic context to avoid confusion. To eliminate a category or article based merely on the religious identity of the subjects, may be "well meaning" but in this case borders on Anti-semitism. I agree that any article or category which "targets" a specific religious group should be deleted, but surely it is a decision for the religious group involved to decide if simply being identified as belonging to a particular religion causes harm. It is not easy to identify the intentions of any contributor, and the naming of this category as "Jewish Psychologists" is unusual, however the name alone and the possible offence to the Jewish community for excluding the name should be taken into account. Joshua De Moulineau 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
**I don't think this is about psychologists being embarrassed to be considered Jewish and to say it "borders on Anti-Semitism" is unfair. I think the deleters feel that this is not a notable intersection, but that the psychologists in it should still be in Jewish categories when appropriate. I'm on the fence myself as cultural background can be relevant to psychology, but at the same time I find no other ethnic category for psychologists. There is no [[:Category:African American psychologists]] or [[:Category:Arab psychologists]].--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 04:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
***The reason why there aren't such categories is because there aren't enough people to fill them - otherwise there should have been one as well.
****That's a bit unfair. When you search for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22african+american+psychologist%22&fulltext=Search "African American psychologist" (in quotes)] at Wikipedia several relevant names pop up and probably more can be found searching it as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22african+american%22+psychologist&fulltext=Search "African American" psychologist]. I found nothing for "Arab psychologist" though.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' There is no questions that there should be a Jewish Psychologists category. Jewishness is BOTH ethnicity and religion, and is unique in that way. There are categories for Jewish painters, scientists, philosophers, architects, actors etc etc, so what's all the fuss about? There is no questions that Freud and Frankl are at least as Jewish as Einstein if not more because their work was actually informed by their Jewishness.[[User:Eliyyahu|Eliyyahu]] 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' overcategorization. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:American liberals ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' delete. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|American liberals}}<br/>
{{{3|Vague term frequently applied improperly. [[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}}}
Line 198 ⟶ 508:
*'''Strong Delete''' as an ill-defined category which will in effect be POV. Given the variety of current uses of the term in the USA, it's very unhelpful to try to lump together the various sorts of social liberal, economic liberal and civil libertarians. There are plenty of social liberals who are strongly opposed to economic liberalism and vice-versa, and classifying them all as "liberal" would incorporate most of the political spectrum (e.g. George W Bush and Ronald Reagan as economic liberals, Bill Clinton as a social liberal, etc). --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* comment - I can't stand this category & completely agree with all the objections raised here (and so many more) but the category is part of a larger tree, which this group previously deferred working on stating strongly that such large decisions ought to be discussed elsewhere. I can't find other discussions, and would also like to delete this category, but it may render this category scheme inconsistent or asymmetrical. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 14:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. All these categories should be deleted, but you can't just bring a very well populated group to deletion without bringing everyone else
**If you want to nominate some of the categories, you should do so, but that's no reason to oppose this one. But I don't .think that it would be appropriate to delete all the subcats of {{cl|American people by political orientation}}: some of the, such as {{cl|American pacifists}} and {{cl|Segregationists}} seem reasonably well-defined. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - per nom. The category is way too liberal in its application. Unless the subject in the article declares being liberal, produce citation into the article. Does not need a category. [[User:Ronbo76|Ronbo76]] 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*: I didn't actually nom it for deletion ... just for discussion ... for exactly the reason that Xiner lists, which is that it is an entire cat tree (albeit a really bad one). --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', incapable of precise, objective definition and meaningless without cultural/historical context and explanation. The meaning of the term has shifted too much over its centuries of usage and has too much breadth for this to accomplish anything informative. The other American [political orientation] categories can be nominated later, with this as a precedent. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. We can't delete this and keep the conservates cat, can we? If a bio article describes someone as a liberal, and that info is sourced, then they should be in this cat. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. 'Liberal' is a vague term, encompassing a wide range of opinions over a wide range of topics. This category fails to define itself in any meaningful way. If we want to categorise people by outlook then we need to be far more specific, eg [[:Category:Pacifists]], etc as noted above.
:[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', undefinable and unmanageable and unnecessary. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' too-broad category, hopeless. Get more specific if you want to categorize the people currently in this cat. — [[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps">lk</span>]] — 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Assignments to categories should be justified by actual words in the article text, according to an objective rule, and I don't see how it could possibly be done in this case. Better to get rid of the category. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Ohyeahmormons|Irk]][[User talk:Ohyeahmormons|<sub>(talk)</sub>]] 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. There is already a category for "American conservatives" and has been for quite some time. That's why this category was created. -- [[User:HowardDean|HowardDean]] 17:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Deleting the category while keeping Category:American conservatives is obviously blatant pov and bias. -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' - Agree with User:AmeriCan. The person who nominated this category must a personal bias. -- [[User:OldRightist|OldRightist]] 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political news commentary. Regardless of your affiliation, if you vote to delete this category, then you must vote to delete the conservative category, and vice versa. Political bias cannot get in the way of truth. You cannot lable someone a conservative, without being able to label them the opposite. As AmeriCan stated prior, this ''is'' blatant POV. [[User:Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#008900;">'''Veracious Rey'''</span>]] ''<small>[[User talk:Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#008900;">talk</span>]]<span style="color:#008900;"> • </span>[[Special:Contributions/Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#008900;">contribs</span>]]<span style="color:#008900;"> • </span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#008900;">review</span>]]</small>'' 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* Comment - I haven't looked at [[:Category:American conservatives]] to see if it's as badly misused as [[:Category:American liberals]], but I agree, in principle, that the AmCons category is unlikely to be any better manageable than AmLibs. More particularly, I think we'll find that having one anot the other will draw the sort of arguments we're seeing here--accusations of bias for one term or the other, from folks who see these two terms as two opposing political perspectives. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I agree with points others made for keeping this category. -- [[User:Freemarket|Freemarket]] 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
**There really haven't been any points, just people pointing out the existence of "American conservatives," but I don't see that anyone supporting the deletion of this category would oppose the deletion of that one as well. That one will likely soon be nominated as well based on this very strong precedent. Regardless, "keep because X exists" is never much of an argument, and "liberal" is an unworkable term for a category classification regardless of whether any other terms happen to be (though I do believe that "conservative" is as well). [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree entirely. I would happily vote for deletion of [[:Category:American conservatives]] for exactly the same reasons as I have here. Whether Conservative or Liberal, these classifications encompass social issues, economics, personal morality, etc, etc, etc. 'Liberal' or 'Conservative' is simply too broad a brush to cover such a breadth of possible opinion.
:::[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*Well then, I propose one of you gentlemen '''nominate the conservative category for deletion''', and see where the chips fall. But we need to agree - if one category goes, they both go. If one stays, they both stay. [[User:Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#006500;">'''Veracious Rey'''</span>]] ''<small>[[User talk:Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#006500;">t</span>]]<span style="color:#006500;"> • </span>[[Special:Contributions/Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#006500;">c</span>]]<span style="color:#006500;"> • </span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Veracious Rey|<span style="color:#006500;">r</span>]]</small>'' 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::We agree insofar as I want to see both of them deleted. I don't wish to tie these two debates though, I don't really want to see them survive under any circumstances.
::Anyway, per your invitation, I have nominated [[:Category:American conservatives]] for deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:American conservatives]].
::[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Question'''There is a user going around soliciting votes for one side on like-minded talk pages. And they are coming here and voting. Is this allowed or is this vote stacking? Just a question.[[User:Jasper23|Jasper23]] 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Who, [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]]? [[Wikipedia:Canvassing]] doesn't seem to deal with this issue with any real clarity. It's certainly disappointing to see that his canvassing message (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoldier2000&diff=102246402&oldid=102129533]) seems to automatically presume that this is a bad-faith nomination. Doubtless whoever closes this debate will take these solicited votes into account in determining whether consensus has been truly reached.
::[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' - The word "liberal" in American politics is much weaker and more vague than "conservative" (and if there is such a category, I'd support its deletion as well if other editors agree it is poorly administered. The quick glance at the list at present includes a conservative Democrat, a Socialist Party leader, two radio shows, a historian commonly identified as a "fellow traveller" (at least by his foes), a civil rights leader, etc.--[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:darkorange;">Orange Mike</span>]] 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Keep''', for various reasons stated above. The debate over the wording of "liberal" or "conservative", as it applies to individuals who may or may not maintain affiliation to Republican or Democratic parties, shouldn't demand the deletion of this category. You are what you are...either a liberal or conservative, a Republican or Democrat. Yes...there are liberal minded individuals who call themselves Republican, and vice verse. If that is the case, then it should be noted in the individuals biography, as it applies to their political thinking/affiliation. Deleting this category only serves to hide the true scope of entries within Wikipedia, and modify them in some way that may be "appropriate" to some. I believe this is a grave mistake and only serves to degrade the quality and completeness of articles in question. [[User:Wrightchr|Wrightchr]] 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:One thing that you're ignoring is that contemporary politicians are not the only ones at issue in this; it's impossible enough to get a stable, meaningful definition at present, but the words simply don't even mean now what they did decades or centuries ago. The result is that the category equivocates unlike things: a 21st century liberal is not the same as a 18th century liberal. The "completeness" of articles will hardly suffer as article text can ''explain'' a subject's political philosophy without it being necessary to reduce that to an ultimately ambiguous category classification. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I don't believe we need to define what is "liberalism" here...when many of the individuals listed in this category openly define themselves as being liberal. That in itself, in my honest opinion, gives the category credibility. The same can be said for the conservative category. Whether or not liberal ideology in the past is truely compariable to like minded individuals of today, isn't the issue here. Issues and subject matter change over time, but the definition of liberalism in the minds of many, has lead to the labeling of their political philosophy. I believe the argument here should be about whether certain individuals belong here...not about the purpose of the category. [[User:Wrightchr|Wrightchr]] 07:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Orangemike. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Many people have made their political philosophy well-known. It SHOULD be categorized. That's what makes an encyclopedia thorough. -- [[User:Voldemort|Voldemort]] 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
**I don't get your argument. Could you elaborate and explain why this works as a category, in response to the criticism above? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The existence of [[:Category:American conservatives|one poorly defined category]] does not justify the existence of another, especially since it seems to be the only argument for the category. A requirement for neutrality does not imply a requirement of fairness.--[[User:Per Abrahamsen|Per Abrahamsen]] 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Adding my vote to "delete" b/c unworkable (I nominated for discussion, feeling it needed to be deleted but wanting to know if there could be any approaches that would work; I haven't seen any). --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. I agree with the argument User:Voldemort has made. -- [[User:Judson|Judson]] 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
** Voldemort's point -- that it's important and well-known -- doesn't address the fundamental problems that the term "American liberals" is unusably vague and subject to multiple different interpretations over time and, these days, political persuasion. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
***Right, and that only supports that it should be documented in articles (which no one disputes), not that it's workable as a category. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. If Wikipedia is going to have the broad category of "American people by political orientation", it must be specific with subcategories such as "American liberals" and "American conservatives". -- [[User:TrojanMan|TrojanMan]] 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
**There ''are'' specific categories in there, such as for socialists, libertarians, or pacifists, that are far less vague than "liberal" or "conservative." Your comment is simply irrelevant to this CFD. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. A vague term being used for polemical purposes. [[User:StudierMalMarburg|StudierMalMarburg]] 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. If you're going to keep any labels, and you're keeping conservative, then it would only be fair to keep liberal as well. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Daniel J. Mount|Daniel J. Mount]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Mount|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Daniel J. Mount|contribs]]) 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*: Actually the debate on conservatives hasn't been canvassed to a lot of people, so it's running all one way: delete. So if this is a contingent "keep" ("If you're going to keep ...") then it should go the other way. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete both''' this and its conservative counterpart. Remember that many people's political beliefs change over time. It's unfair and inaccurate to categorize them so broadly. [[User:Lovelac7|<span style="font-family:garamond, times new roman, times; color:#006633;">Lovelac7</span>]] 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''': Term is undefined, POV, and generally unsourced in articles. If this is kept, authoritative sources would be necessary. [[User:Avt tor|Avt tor]]
*'''Delete''' per my comments on the conservative counterpart. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' undefined, generally unsourced category that calls for POV and leaves too much room for abuse. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]]
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Mathematical templates]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Mathematical templates]] to [[:Category:Mathematical function templates]]
Rather than templates to add to articles on mathematics, these templates perform mathematical functions. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Rename''' as nom. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Rename''' as nom. Are any of them actually used in articles, or have they been created because you can? I would be interested to see some articles that use them. I could not find any. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. A mathematical template performs a mathematical task.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
** Any view, though, on the potential for ambiguity between "Mathematical templates" and "Mathematics templates"...? Cf above for rationale. Regards, [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
***We have [[:Category:Mathematics and abstraction-related templates]] and some subcategories, incl. [[:Category:Mathematics templates]].--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
**** Well, "mathematics" and "mathematical" seem similar to me, so I guess I'm suggesting something more distinctive for those templates that "do" some math rather than describe/link to it. Thanks, though, for pointing out the "Mathematics and abstraction-related" category. Yours, [[User:David Kernow|David]] <span style="font-size:90%;">([[User talk:David Kernow|talk]])</span> 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====Template category disambiguation====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Award templates]] to [[:Category:Wikipedia award templates]]
* [[:Category:Date math]] to <del>[[:Category:Date math templates]]</del> [[:Category:Date mathematics templates]] (see below)
* [[:Category:Current daylight saving offset]] to [[:Category:Current daylight-saving offset templates]]
* '''Rename all''' as nom. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Rename all''' per nom. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Rename''' but s/b [[:Category:Current daylight saving offset templates]]. I see no reason for a dash. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
** I think it's because "daylight saving" is being used as an adjectival. Any grammarians...? Regards, [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename all but Comment''' re [[:Category:Date math]]—is there any reason not to rename this as [[:Category:Date mathematics templates]]? I know that 'math' is very much a USism, but is it not also a colloquialism and therefore best avoided? (This has always been my impression, I'm willing to be corrected if it is also used in more formal contexts).
:[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:* I guess "math" is an abbreviation of "mathematics", so have amended proposal accordingly. Thanks, [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as per (refined) nomination. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====[[:Category:Starfleet personnel]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Star Trek characters]], or '''Keep'''.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - the only entry is already listed in the appropriate category so just delete this. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Unnecessary subcategory of Star Trek characters. No other similar subdivisions currently exist (the main subcategories for Star Trek characters are by race or show.) [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:On a related note, should we also nominate [[:Category:Star Trek villains]] for deletion, as per other similar "villain" categories that have been previously deleted? I noticed it while looking into this cfd. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====Template categories====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename first, keep second. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggest
* [[:Category:Microsoft templates]] to [[:Category:Microsoft-related templates]]
Line 228 ⟶ 632:
* '''Rename both''' as nom. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Rename first, keep second'''. First as nom, second because temporal templates is no less straight-forward than "Time-related templates" in my view. --[[User:GunnarRene|GunnarRene]] 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Rename first, keep second''' per GunnarRene. Temporal templates is the right phrase to describe <nowiki>{{future}}</nowiki>.- [[User:Gilliam|Gilliam]] 22:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
====Last of the book categories====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[[:Category:Stephen Baxter short stories]] → [[:Category:Short stories by Stephen Baxter]]<br>
[[:Category:David Brin non-fiction]] → [[:Category:Non-fiction works by David Brin]]<br>
Line 240 ⟶ 652:
[[:Category:Works by Yeats]] → [[:Category:Works of William Butler Yeats]]<br>
[[:Category:Roald Dahl children's books]] → [[:Category:Children's books by Roald Dahl]]<br>
*'''Rename''' per recent '''Books by What's 'Is Name''' convention. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small
*'''Rename''' them [[User:Ulysses Zagreb|Ulysses Zagreb]] 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' as per nom, :: [[User:Kevinalewis|<span style="color: #33C;">Kevinalewis</span>]] : [[User talk:Kevinalewis|<span style="color:#CC9900"><sup>(Talk Page)</sup></span>]]/[[User:Kevinalewis/Desk|<span style="color:#CC9900"><sub>(Desk)</sub></span>]] 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Ugly Betty actors ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' rename. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:Ugly Betty actors]]''' to [[:Category:Ugly Betty cast members]]
*{{{3|'''Rename''' - per a number of recent renames to restrict TV show actor categories to recurring cast only. Cat will need to be pruned following rename which I'm happy to help with. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}}}
Line 251 ⟶ 670:
*'''Rename''' per nomination. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom; these categories should always exclude guest stars because the relationship to the show simply won't be significant enough to merit classification. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' Per many recent previous similar renamings. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per reasoning for debates on [[:Category:My Name Is Earl actors]], [[:Category:Austin Powers actors]], and [[:Category:Bewitched actors]], listed above.
:[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup> 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' how many of these cats is there going to be? --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''rename''' per Otto4711. [[User:Mr. Stabs|Mr. Stabs]] 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or at least '''Rename''' per nom. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per all our other discussions about how impractical it is to assign a category for every job someone has ever had. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Sailors who committed suicide ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' merge. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:[[:Category:Sailors who committed suicide]] into [[:Category:Military personnel who committed suicide]]
*'''Merge''', category consists of only six entries and has not been edited since its creation in Apr 2006. All but one of the entries are military personnel. [[User:RJASE1|RJASE1]] 01:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 259 ⟶ 693:
*'''Comment''' shouldn't there be a difference between falling on your sword (''saving your honor''), jumping on a grenade (''heroism''), participating in a forlorn hope (''glory''), and depression driven death? [[User:70.51.8.140|70.51.8.140]] 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**Nope. Not the kinds of value judgments we make here.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*** Then a sailor standing in support of a line batallion in line of battle, stopping a bullet with their body (''duty'') would be suicide? (Technically it should be, it's suicidal to stand in the front rank of a musket era army) [[User:70.55.84.218|70.55.84.218]] 06:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. --[[User:Mikedk9109|'''<span style="background:Black; color:orange"> Mikedk9109 </span>''']][[User talk:Mikedk9109|<span style="background:Black; color:white"> '''(hit me up)''' </span>]][[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<sup style="color:black;">'''''SIGN'''''</sup>]] 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Roman Catholic musicians ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 {{{1|}}} '''Relist'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Roman Catholic musicians}}<br/>
{{{3|*<s>'''Delete''' - The category is not about musicians who perform religious music but musicians who are Roman Catholic. Hence, people such as [[Jon Bon Jovi]] and [[Gwen Stefani]], whose religion has little apparent impact on their music, are included in this category. Hence, the category is an arbitrary intersection of religion and occupation and should be deleted. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 00:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)</s>}}}
*'''Delete''' Standing in place of the nominator, who unfortunately has left for reasons other than the category having merit. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
**I also will gladly '''re-nominate''' this category for '''deletion''' based on Wikipedia guidelines on overcategorization re: intersection by religion,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference] so why waste the discussion we've already had? [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' Yes there's been abuse, but this is a perfectly valid intersection. Just as [[:Category:Christian musicians]] or [[:Category:Muslim musicians]] is. Still if you'd accept a rename to [[:Category:Roman Catholic music people]], to make it just Catholic music, I could tolerate that as a compromise.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Please add the newest nominations to the top -->
*'''Keep''' - as with any category or subject, there will be abuse or perhaps the category might seem un-important to you but is to the person in the article and those who read it. Some entertainers, who are Catholic, even entertain by singing in church or on religious specials or Christmas albums. [[User:Ronbo76|Ronbo76]] 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**How do you know that it will seem important to many or most of the people that read it? Have you commissioned independent research? [[User:Wimstead|Wimstead]] 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' at least for now. We should keep '''All''' or '''None''' of ''[[:Category:Musicians by religion]]''. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 272 ⟶ 715:
::On its talk page someone actually complained about [[Enya]] being in the category. Her song "Pax Deorum" is in Latin and translates to "Heavenly father, God is with us..Heavenly father, God is with me Believe that every day has dawned for you as the last. Believe that every day has dawned for you as the last" plus she said she's Catholic in an interview.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' pretty irrelevant I say [[User:Ulysses Zagreb|Ulysses Zagreb]] 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Prove It. Simple case. ~<span style="font: small-caps 14px times;"><b>[[User:SwitChar|<
*'''Keep''' all religions irrespective. How can you remove just one? [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]<sup>[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]</sup> 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' We've been deleting this type of intersections. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]], [[Special:Emailuser/Xiner|email]]) 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', this does not document a categorically meaningful relationship, only one that is meaningful for ''some''. The complete inability of this category to limit entries to those for whom this may be a relevant intersection means that it will unavoidably include those for whom it is not relevant, which no one seems to dispute. If you would like to group together musicians for whom their religion has been significant for them ''as musicians'', explain it in an article; trying to do it in a category accomplishes nothing of the sort except to bury the relevant entries in coincidentally related ones from all of recorded history, without regard to cultural context or individual biographical differences. That other similar categories have not been nominated is irrelevant because those can—and will—be nominated later under this precedent. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:I admittedly don't find much for "Roman Catholic musicians", but outside of Wikipedia Catholics apparently just call themselves "Catholics" rather than specifying Roman-rite. (What to call Catholics is admittedly difficult. "Roman Catholics" seems to exclude Eastern Catholics, but just plain "Catholic" is insulting to Eastern Orthodoxers and Anglo-Catholics) Anyway there is a [http://www.cammusic.com/artists.html Catholic Association of Musicians] and although most artists here aren't in that, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. (For example I think the association is US based, etc) I'd be okay with "Roman Catholic Church" musicians even if that'd annoy some, but compromises like that are never deemed tolerable by either side.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Because there are others like it, so if you delete this, i just thinks you should delete the others categories[[User:Domingo Portales|Domingo Portales]] 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]]. [[User:Wimstead|Wimstead]] 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep but clean up and restrict''' As above, a category like this is ok if it is for musicians whose Roman Catholic beliefs ''directly impact'' their musical career. Roman Catholic choir singers would be a good example (or the Pope's Roman Catholic rock band if he had one.) Singers who happen to be Roman Catholic but for whom being Roman Catholic has no effect on their music should be excluded from the category. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. The keep votes seem to be based on the fact that other similar intersections are not being proposed for deletion. That is not a valid reason to keep this one. If there are other categories that need to be nominated, then they should also be listed and deleted. So to those who voted keep citing other categories, please consider changing your vote and nominating those other categories that should also be deleted. Also how does someone propose to restrict what is placed into the category if kept? Category contents can not be watched for changes like an article. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Religious background is part of someone's bio. It is entirely valid that someone might want to find muslim, hindu, jewish musicians etc. Our job is to make it easier for readers to find the info they need. Why people are afraid of that is beyond me. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
**And why you think that anyone is "afraid" of anything is beyond me. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - If this discussion reaches no consensus, I will renominate this category for deletion as well as all of the other categories within [[:Category:Musicians by religion]]. Apparently, my failure to nominate the whole tree for deletion has caused some objections to this specific proposal. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:* Repeatedly renominating the same articles/categories for deletion can be seen as disruptive and/ or a violation of WP:Point. This is the second time this category has been nominated and many of the others have been previously nominated as well. Many of these categories replaced lists that were then deleted. Consider not renominating. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Agree with above. Also I'll just say keep again. If you proposed something more like "delete these, but create these more specific versions" I might feel different, but you only ever say "delete" on intersections.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::*I will withhold from a repeat nomination. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' - The nominator's comment about renominating begins to concede defeat as well as [[WP:DISRUPT]] if not [[WP:SNOW]]. [[User:Ronbo76|Ronbo76]] 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' - Faith in this case is trivial intersection. As far as musicians who actually play Catholic music, they should go under musicians by genre. --[[User:Colage|Colage]] 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Do we have a category for Catholic music as a genre?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::Nevermind we do have [[:Category:Catholic music]]. However it's of music, it doesn't contain any musicians that I can see. Putting everyone in [[List of Roman Catholic Church musicians]], they all did Catholic music I check that one more thoroughly, in [[:Category:Catholic music]] might look kind of weird
*'''Delete''' per [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference]] [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. This is my vote, not to be counted twice with my support for the re-nomination up top. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:The nomination was essentially withdrawn. You should also maybe read the overcategorization essay better. Religion often is relevant to music, even secular music see some [[U2]] for example, and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=%22catholic+musicians%22+-wikipedia+-answers+-absoluteastronomy&btnG=Search Catholic musicians] are an established intersection.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 08:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::I am standing in place of the original nominator. IN my opinion the idea that just one person out of many that have commented in favour of deletion can suddenly turn around and say that the discussion is no longer going to take place is patently absurd. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Be that as it may it can be done. Although usually it's done when the vote is going strongly for keep, rather than no concensus as this one most likely will.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::That is so patently ridiculous that it is impossible to believe. Where is this absurd policy? It if exists it needs to be changed immediately. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't know the policy, but it apparently exists. I wanted to withdraw the CfD on [[:Category:Former Christian Scientists]] and asked how it could be done. An administrator was informed and it was done. See [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 2#Category:Former Christian Scientists]].--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Withdrawl of nomination''' - I see no reason to continue this discussion if I will be accused of disruptive behaviour. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::I'd like to say again I'm sorry if I hurt you. Sometimes Internet communication is so impersonal you don't think about other people's feelings. I think you're wrong in many ways, but you have your reasons.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::'''I have restated the nomination'''. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] I don't think you have the right to unilaterally say that the opinions of all the people in favour of deletion should now be ignored. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I think that's how CfD works, nominator can withdraw request, regardless of what votes have accrued. But you can start a new CfD, without waiting, since no decision was rendered, however, people have to vote again. IIRC. [[User:70.55.84.218|70.55.84.218]] 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as a marginal intersection. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' If fully populated this would contain many thousands of articles, and it would be of next to no value for the identification of people whose work is strongly connected by style or theme or anything else. [[User:Honbicot|Honbicot]] 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' if all musicians by other religious denominations are being '''Kept'''; '''Delete''' if all others are being '''Deleted'''. Which means that I am re-stating my vote per the last CfD nomination. Nothing changes my original point (which nobody else commented much on, it seems - perhaps someone will this time). Please also consider quotes from the previous nomination, namely: <span style="color:green;">"Apparently, my failure to nominate the whole tree for deletion has caused some objections to this specific proposal. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|<span style="color:green;">Dr. Submillimeter</span>]] 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"</span>; and: <span style="color:green;">"Repeatedly renominating the same articles/categories for deletion can be seen as disruptive and/ or a violation of WP:Point. --[[User:JJay|<span style="color:green;">JJay</span>]] 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"</span>. [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]<sup>[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]</sup> 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:Personally I would've objected regardless. That many musicians just happen to be Catholic, or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, doesn't change the fact that musical careers can be strongly effected by the musicians religion. [[:Category:Roman Catholic writers]] includes debatable examples like [[Karel Čapek]] and [[Jules Verne]], but that doesn't negate that there is such a thing as Catholic writing or writers. Same with [[:Category:Sufi poets]] or whatever.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:OC]], because most "keep" comments are either procedural (based on the suggestion that its parent cat [[:Category:Musicians by religion]] should be deleted in its entirety) or variants of "I like it". [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">><span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
| |||