Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:My Name Is Earl actors

Propose renaming Category:My Name Is Earl actors to Category:My Name Is Earl cast members

Rename and prune to limit to recurring actors only, and exclude guest stars, per a number of recent precedents on TV show actor categories. Postdlf 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Half Man Half Biscuit albums and EPs

Rename to Category:Half Man Half Biscuit albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Series broadcast by Animax

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. Otto4711 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Postdlf 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Madison Wisconsin based companies

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. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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^nd largest city. I would not want to see the rest split out by city in ones and twos. ~ Bigr Tex 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scary Movie characters

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. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of a suggested upmerge destination. Otto4711 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Category:Scary Movie, Category:Fictional comedy characters and Category:Film characters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environmental organizations based in Vermont

Upmerge into Category:Environmental organizations based in the United States, which is much too small for a 50 way split. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hybrid music genres

Propose renaming Category:Hybrid music genres to Category:Fusion music genres

Rename, Hybrid is incorrect terminology. Fusion is the term used by critics and music taxonomists, not hybrid. For example, jazz fusion. ~Switch ^t 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorcyclists

Rarely is riding a motorcycle a 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. ×Meegs 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. ~Switch ^t 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dr S. The Rambling Man 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, trivia with no possible way to objectively limit inclusion to those for whom motorcycles may actually be meaningful. Postdlf 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methodist missionaries in Africa

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. Dr. Submillimeter 11:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom: no need to subdivide yet. See also discussion at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. roundhouse 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversies

Delete, Problematic as an umbrella cat. If its subcats could perhaps work on their own, grouping them into one category is absurd and unmanageable. Dahn 12:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. The Rambling Man 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess I just don't see the problem, looks like it's being more or less managed right now. Recury 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missionaries to Cameroon

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries to Cameroon to Category:Christian missionaries in Cameroon

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. Dr. Submillimeter 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. (See also discussion at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Christian missionaries in Africa - Cameroon has a complicated history post 1900. roundhouse 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. The category should absolutely not be "ubmerged" per roundhouse; these folks had a strong impact on Cameroon and need to remain on the categorization tree at that country's level. — BrianSmithson 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or Rename. Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Treehouse of Horror episodes

Unnecessary subset of Category:The Simpsons episodes, containing one episode from each season. It should be merged. >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Ulysses Zagreb 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This is an interesting subgrouping of episodes, but not deserving of a category. ~ Bigr Tex 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Park children

Unnecessary subset of Category:South Park characters, containing those characters of a certain age. It should be merged. >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Park characters seems a bit big... Ulysses Zagreb 09:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but note that most articles in the 'children' cat are also already in the 'characters' cat. >Radiant< 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if needed. Don't create lame categories just because one is "too big." Recury 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom, and per Recury. Postdlf 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Older versions of cartoon characters

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). >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete becuase category doesn't make a lotof sense. Ulysses Zagreb 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ×Meegs 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters portrayed by the opposite sex

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. >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination. Ulysses Zagreb 09:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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". --lquilter 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Across cultures, this occurs under very different circumstances, and far too often to make a useful category. ×Meegs 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - You will all note that the category consists largely (maybe entirely) of anime characters so I suspect it was a well-intentioned category to contain those characters. List could be appropriate. --lquilter 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. ×Meegs 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Interesting. --(trogga) 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders

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. >Radiant< 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. ×Meegs 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per repeat deletion of fictional overeaters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're referring to this Nov 23 discussion. The category considered here is quite different, though it's no more useful unless comical overeaters are excluded. ×Meegs 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austin Powers actors

Category:Bewitched actors

I'm nominating these two categories as a test case for all the subcategories of Category:Actors by film series. I propose that these categories be deleted in replaced with cast lists that would offer more information than the categories can. The big problem with these categories, is not the categories themselves, but what they do to the articles about the actors placed in the categories. For an example, look at the categories for Michael Caine. Bewitched and Austin Powers are the only two of thes "actors by performance" categories listed for him. Looking at Michael Caine's categories gives the impression that Bewitched and Austin Powers were significant roles for him. This is a false impression. Someone looking at the categories might be inspired to add categories for all his film appearences, and not just these two. Even if they were to restrain themselves to his most "significant" roles, they would have to add several films. This would just lead to a huge amount of category clutter for actors. There is already consensus that we should not categorize actors by their individual films, but there hasn't yet been consensus about not categorizing actors by "film series". This is long overdue. Michael Caine is not an isolated example of this problem. Pick virtually any film actor with numerous roles and you will hard pressed to understand which performances deserve categories and which do not. A much better way of dealing with this information is to create cast lists and filmography lists. Then we can ban all categorization of artists by their productions or performances. This is why we have lists. If these two categories get deleted, I'll propose more of them be deleted. Samuel Wantman 08:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep- Doesn't it make it easier to search for actors by what they appeard in>? Anyway Bewitched is a tv series not a film ;) Ulysses Zagreb 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They would be just as easy to find in a list. A list for the Bewitched series would have let you know that he was in the film and not the TV series. -- Samuel Wantman 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Categorizing actors by film role is inappropriate. TV actor categories have "all inclusiveness" problems. Dr. Submillimeter 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, I think deleting them all is the right thing to do. According to IMDB, Kevin Bacon has been in 62 films so far, imagine what his article would look like if we added a category for every film. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename each to Category:Austin Powers cast members and Category:Bewitched cast members in line with current (17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)) suggestion for Category:Ugly Betty actors to be renamed Category:Ugly Betty cast members. And if a cast member's personal Wiki page becomes more complicated after doing this, re: Prove It, it's no proper reason to delete. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Michael Caine's categories make sense? Are you saying that all actors performances should be categories? Only the ones that are series? Only the ones that art TV series? I am looking for us to come up with a rational way of dealing with all of these categories. Which films, series, TV series, plays, etc... deserve categories like this and which do not? What is your problem with converting these into lists? They would be just as easy to find, would be in exactly the same ___location in the category structure, and would include much more information. Explain why converting these categories into lists would be a disadvantage.-- Samuel Wantman 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to cast members and oppose deletion per my reasoning. Tim! 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Samuel Wantman 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I think IMDB is a better resource than this type of categories. Xiner (talk, email) 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Postdlf 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malay diaspora

Category:Malay diaspora
Category:Arab-Malays
Category:European-Malays
Category:Turkish-Malays
Category:Albanian-Malays
Category:Austrian-Malays
Category:Bosnian-Malays
Category:Bulgarian-Malays
Category:Croatian-Malays
Category:Czech-Malays
Category:Danish-Malays
Category:Dutch-Malays
Category:English-Malays
Category:Finnish-Malays
Category:French-Malays
Category:Georgian-Malays
Category:German-Malays
Category:Greek-Malays
Category:Hungarian-Malays
Category:Irish-Malays
Category:Italian-Malays
Category:Lithuanian-Malays
Category:Macedonian-Malays
Category:Malay-Scots
Category:Maltese-Malays
Category:Norwegian-Malays
Category:Polish-Malays
Category:Portuguese-Malays
Category:Russian-Malays
Category:Serbian-Malays
Category:Spanish-Malays
Category:Swedish-Malays
Category:Swiss-Malays
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. (MichaelJLowe 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - this category has been created using a falsely broad and exagerated definition that has no verification. Merbabu 06:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. Most of the categories are empty anyway. - Longhair\^talk 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. SatuSuro 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per norm. I assume these categories are going to be used for another X Malays articles, which is not notable. There is no academic sources support these race definition. How many X Malays categories are there going to create? — Indon (reply) — 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Ulysses Zagreb 09:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awful misnomers and unlikely cats. Dahn 12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhythm & Blues

Merge / Redirect into Category:Rhythm and blues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge No redirect. Xiner (talk, email) 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish psychologists

Delete, Where is the pressing need to categorize psychologists 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. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need. Xiner (talk, email) 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American liberals

Vague term frequently applied improperly. lquilter 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually suggesting deletion or renaming; just raising it for discussion. I don't have a proposal and can only shake my head. This category, created today in the supercat Category:American people by political orientation, is certainly an important topic. And the supercat survived CFD (11/16) just a couple of months ago with referral to later discussion. But in the meantime the Category:American liberals cat, at least, is being greatly populated and really wrongly.
- I will take it to Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#people by political belief -- I hadn't thoroughly read the original discussion. --lquilter 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a very vague term; it could apply to Thomas Jefferson in one context, Howard Zinn in another LaszloWalrus 07:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lquilter 14:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these categories should be deleted, but you can't just bring a very well populated group to deletion without bringing everyone else. Strong oppose. Xiner (talk, email) 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ronbo76 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical templates

Category:Mathematical templates to Category:Mathematical function templates

Rather than templates to add to articles on mathematics, these templates perform mathematical functions. David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template category disambiguation

Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Starfleet personnel

Merge into Category:Star Trek characters, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only entry is already listed in the appropriate category so just delete this. Otto4711 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template categories

Suggest

Category:Microsoft templates to Category:Microsoft-related templates

as as Microsoft itself uses the term "template" in its software; and

Category:Temporal templates to Category:Time-related templates

as more straightforward. David Kernow (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the book categories

Category:Stephen Baxter short stories → Category:Short stories by Stephen Baxter
Category:David Brin non-fiction → Category:Non-fiction works by David Brin
Category:Lord Byron works → Category:Works of Lord Byron
Category:Jinyong's wuxia novels → Category:Wuxia novels by Jinyong
Category:Arthur C. Clarke short stories → Category:Short stories by Arthur C. Clarke
Category:Philip K. Dick short stories → Category:Short stories by Philip K. Dick
Category:Ernest Hemingway works → Category:Works of Ernest Hemingway
Category:Kurt Vonnegut works → Category:Works of Kurt Vonnegut
Category:Works by Yeats → Category:Works of William Butler Yeats
Category:Roald Dahl children's books → Category:Children's books by Roald Dahl

Rename per recent Books by What's 'Is Name convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename them Ulysses Zagreb 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom, :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ugly Betty actors

Propose renaming Category:Ugly Betty actors to Category:Ugly Betty cast members

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. Otto4711 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename as it refers to members of a media production, not a professional fraternity. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Tim! 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Postdlf 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sailors who committed suicide

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. RJASE1 01:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think in the creation of these categories, I hit Frederick Fleet and didn't know what else to do with him. He's not a military person, and is most definitely a sailor. Hence, this category.--Mike Selinker 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete otherwise keep since not all sailors who off themselves are military. Otto4711 07:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? 70.51.8.140 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Not the kinds of value judgments we make here.--Mike Selinker 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic musicians

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. Dr. Submillimeter 00:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--T. Anthony 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ronbo76 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. We should keep All or None of Category:Musicians by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the worry is about abuse or non-performance as a Catholic, then perhaps the other category for people who are Catholic should be used on those articles where that issue might be valid. But, that determination of tag usage should be made by the editors who tag the article. A great example of this would be Bing Crosby who performed numerous times for the church or as a Catholic entertainer/musician. Ronbo76 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--T. Anthony 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty irrelevant I say Ulysses Zagreb 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prove It. Simple case. ~Switch ^t 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all religions irrespective. How can you remove just one? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've been deleting this type of intersections. Xiner (talk, email) 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Postdlf 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]