Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 11

< April 10	April 12 >

April 11

Category:Systems

Delete - This is the categorization of anything named a "system" or anything that can be called a system, which is a form of overcategorization. The articles and categories in Category:Systems are otherwise unrelated. For example, the articles in Category:Reproductive system are not in any way related to the articles in Category:Role-playing game systems. This category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too broad a category, as described by Dr. Sub above. Dugwiki 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely, broadly named category. Doczilla 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — this is a well established category with matching categories in 18 other different languages. Surely this indicates that a system is an important concept that needs categorizing. You could apply the same argument above to any high-level more philosophical Wikipedia category covering concepts. — Jonathan Bowen 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racist video games

This nomination appears to have been accidentally deleted from cfd logs for April 10th, so I am relisting it for April 11th (someone inadvertantly erased it when adding a comment on another topic) This category appears to suffer from POV inclusion problems, similar to the deleted Category:Racists, and only currently contains two games. Therefore delete as it looks like an unnecessary and possibly overly subjective category. Dugwiki 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective, pejorative category per previous "racist" category deletions. Doczilla 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kernels

Pluralization. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy, and added the rest. I'd change all of the "kernel" categories to the appropriate plural.--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - This is a clear case where pluralization is warranted. This should have been left in the speedy rename section. Dr. Submillimeter 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Wisconsin presidents to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison presidents

for specificity. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose. Problem is that the head of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been called "chancellor" and not president since the early 1970s. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Speedy. The header to Category:University and college presidents accounts for chancellors.--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet categories

capitalization Otto4711 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Internet is generally capitalized, as it is here in History of the Internet. My spellchecker still regards the lowercase as incorrect. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)c[reply]

Two issues: The category page states a rename to Category:American internet personalities and not as listed above. Secondly, Internet should remain first letter capped. RedWolf 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the personalities/celebrities thing. Disagree that internet should be capitalized. Otto4711 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I strongly agree that Internet should be capitalized. There's only one, and that's its proper name. But obviously, this is no longer a speedy candidate and should be sent to CfD. Xtifr _tälk 13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy. I think "internet" can be used as an uncapped adjective. Regardless, I also think "celebrities" should become "personalities".--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the first to Category:American Internet personalities; Keep second as is. Even if small-"i"-internet is occasionally used as an adjective, such usage is rare and should probably be considered non-standard. Xtifr _tälk 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Despite wide acceptance of uncapped "internet", it's supposed to be capitalized. Doczilla 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young adult Authors to Category:Young adult authors

cap. —Cryptic 18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps something less, um, cryptic (if you'll pardon the term)? Is this for authors who are young adults, or authors who write for young adults? Grutness...wha? 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. It should be Category:Writers of young adult literature, which would be a fine speedy target. For whatever reason, all the other categories that you might expect to be titled "authors" are instead "writers". — coel acan — 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that makes sense to me, this now takes it out of "speedy", and it should be relisted? - jc37 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy. I prefer the nominated way.--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Writers of young adult literature as the most accurate. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of dramedy television series episodes

Propose renaming Category:Lists of dramedy television series episodes to Category:Lists of comedy-drama television series episodes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Renaming in line with Category:Comedy-drama television series, Category:Comedy-drama, Category:Comedy-drama films, and the main article, Comedy-drama. On the talk page the category's creator stated this name had the benefit of being shorter and these category names are getting excessively long. It's 5 more key-strokes to retain consistency, I think people can handle the extra "effort". Pufnstuf 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment shouldn't that be comedic drama, or dramatic comedy? 132.205.44.134 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comedy-drama" = 1,910,000 ghits; "comedic drama" = 62,800 ghits. That's a 97% majority for "comedy-drama". "Dramatic comedy" gets 116,000 ghits, so "comedy-drama" is by far the most common term. Allmovie even has an article devoted to Comedy-drama. Pufnstuf 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:People museums

Unsure - I'm only nominating the parent at this point. On the one hand, this category and its subcats are a variety of eponymous category and sentiment seems to be running pretty strongly against them. OTOH, these aren't simply museums named after people but are instead museums about the people for whom they are named. Part of the category description indicates that it's for museums whose collections are based on those of a single person and those should be removed from the category and the description tightened, but I do see some utility in grouping such museums together as a child of Category:Museums by type. I do think the names need to be changed if kept but I'm not sure to what. Otto4711 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone comes up with a better name, which is perhaps unlikely. Oliver Han 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though preferably with a different name (Museums devoted to Individuals?) - these are often fairly unique Museums, that are nonetheless fairly common.A Musing 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Museums about individual people - This name would be a slight improvement on the existing name. Dr. Submillimeter 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Biographical museums maybe. I actually first proposed this on the talk page in November 2005. If you google it, the term appears to be in use, albeit somewhat sparingly, probably because the concept does not come up too often.--Pharos 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this is a well-established category. — Jonathan Bowen 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban decay in popular culture

Delete - The term "urban decay" is vague and broadly applicable to many urban phenomena. The category's inclusion criteria are therefore subjective and suffer from POV problems. For example, Category:Hip hop and Category:Punk are both subcategories of this category, even though those genres are not always associated with "urban decay". The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category, broad beyond uselessness. Doczilla 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diana, Princess of Wales

Delete - eponymous category the contents of which (mostly relatives) can all be easily interlinked through the main article. Insufficient material to warrant a category. Otto4711 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Category page does not define its inclusion criteria, and in practice contains mostly biographical articles of people who are connected in some way. However, this isn't particularly systematic and their relationships are quite different. And how can Category:Charles, Prince of Wales be a subcategory of this one? Cart before the horse anyone? Sam Blacketer 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malcolm X

Delete - as with many other eponymous categories, the articles within this one are interlinked through the main article and each other, making the category unnecessary as a navigational hub. Otto4711 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charles Lindbergh

Delete - another eponymous overcategorization. The articles in the category are either easily interlinked through the main article and each other or are only tangentially related (Earth Inductor Compass is included because Lindbergh used one on his flight; Hopewell, NJ because it was the town nearest the Lindbergh estate). Otto4711 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George S. Patton

Delete - overcategorization. The content of the category is easily and properly interlinked through the main article and each other so there is no need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donald Trump

Delete - unnecessary eponymous category holding two subcats which are a) categorized elsewhere and b) up for deletion themselves. Otto4711 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by societal reaction

Delete because of the subjective nature of the categorisation. We have previously deleted a category for video games by societal reation but I'm not finding the discussion. Otto4711 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - not quite how sure you "measure" societal reaction, so hence inherently POV. Rgds, - Trident13 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Powerful delete this subjective categorization. Doczilla 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Films - The category does suffer from POV problems. However, the two articles and the category should still be categorized under films. Dr. Submillimeter 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous medical terms

Delete all - another set of categories that collect articles based on their baing named after something, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. and other eponymous category deletions. Doczilla 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The various articles share little in common except their names. Dr. Submillimeter 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations

Propose renaming Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category contains only 3 list articles. I believe it should be merged into another film or film-list category, but I'm not sure which one. kingboyk 16:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fluffed the nom up slightly. I'm proposing the articles be recategorised somewhere (cat merge) rather than a cat rename. --kingboyk 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm leaning toward nominating the articles for deletion as well. No need for the category under any name. Otto4711 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete awkward category. Doczilla 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cult films

Delete - (I found this category while surfing Wikipedia. Someone else had posted Template:AfD in the category. I replaced the template with a CfD template.) As discussed elsewhere, the term "cult" as applied to entertainment suffers from POV problems. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, shading to reluctant acquiescence to deletion - there is a significant body of material about cult films ("Midnight Movies" by J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum for instance) so it's less subjective than an equivalent category for TV shows or other aspects of entertainment. The category is salvageable IHMO assuming that it relies on reliable sources for the "cult" status of the film and not some random editor's deciding that "small fan base" or "weird movie" equals "cult film." Otto4711 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (but clean up is necessary) - Cult Films are just like the equally controversial and equally unknown as the Honor Killing of your own daughter if she goes out with boys in Turkey. That being said, deleting this category would be a mistake. However I feel that this list needs to be cleaned up and proof that this movie is a cult film, as this list is controversial and a magnet to people's POV. A way we can do this is by categorizing the films by the point they are getting across, such as revolution in the movie Fritz the Cat or legalizing marijuana in the movie Grass. Also, for the literal cases that can not be classified this way, the cult that made the film.- Hamster2.0 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of vague, subjective category. Doczilla 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I love culty films, I made good money showing them when Iw as a student, but most of these are simply films that people assert are cult films. Borat, for example - is that a cult film? Does it have a small but obsessive following, with a popularity utterly baffling to non-fans, like, for example, Plan 9 From Outer Space? A list with reliable sources (preferably Ebert or smilar) for each entry is the way to go here. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think I have heard both Highlander (film) and Blade Runner referred to as cult films, even though they seem to have too much of a mainstream following to qualify as such (from my point of view). Dr. Submillimeter 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is better defined and more seriously studied than other cult entertainment. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Lugnuts 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cult" is much abused word. Oliver Han 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no inclusion criteria on the Category but the article Cult films defines a cult film as one with a "highly devoted but relatively small group of fans". How is the devotedness of fans measured, and how small a group of fans does it have to be? Relative to what? The Blues Brothers has a group of fans which exceeds that of many films which are clearly mainstream. How must they demonstrate their devotion? I really think this is an arbitrary categorisation; fans may put their favourite films in there to try to increase their prominence. Sam Blacketer 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that List of cult films was similarly deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films) as having too subjective an inclusion criteria, and as a general rule if something is too subjective to be a list it is even less suited to be a category (since categories have stricter requirements for Wikipedia inclusion than lists). Dugwiki 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasion it was deleated last time was because... -Hamster2.0 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to being split off (from the main artical), I tagged this list section as being unreferenced and requested references from editors and from the Wiki Film project to verify that the list was something that was objective, verifiable and not original research.

Delete, even though, like Guy, I frequently love "culty" films, this is far too vague and subjective. If it's too subjective for a list, it's wa-a-a-ay too subjective for a category! And if people feel this can be properly cited, it's probably better to do so as a list in the first place (perhaps initially created in user-space and then taken to deletion review). Xtifr _tälk 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Somerset culture

Propose renaming Category:Somerset culture to Category:Culture in Somerset

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To bring category inline with existing "Culture in (English County)" style. Rgds, - Trident13 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show business families

Delete all - as with many other "family" categories, these either have insufficient material to warrant categories and the various articles are all interlinked with each other, or the category system does not serve well to explain the family relationships between people with different family names. In each case, an article (such as the article for Redgrave family) can be created if the family relationships are sufficiently complex. Otto4711 14:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This sort of thing is much better handled as an article which can properly delineate and annotate and describe. I hate to imagine what would will happen to all the "occupation X family" categories when the genealogists get ahold of them and start adding in third cousins twice removed, and the great<super>5</super>-grand-daddy of the family. --lquilter 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intersection of profession and familial relationship tends to be a rather trivial one, and that's what we ahve got here. Concur with Otto4711, if there is enough of a familial presence in showbiz, they can have an article, but that's about it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, unnecessary intersection. These people's articles are already linked through content, and it's not like these are the only Rooneys, Stillers, and Redgraves in the world. Doczilla 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, no objection to them existing as articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women television writers

Delete This category is unnecessary and it contains only two articles. Brandon97 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into women screenwriters - this was a recently created category, not sure what the nominator means by unnecessary, but it is a perfectly valid category.A Musing 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Women screenwriters Seems like this is probably an unnecessary subdivision of the women screenwriters category. Dugwiki 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge per nom. or merge into the more inclusive Category:Women writers because every screenwriter has written other things as well. Doczilla 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_23#Category:Women_writers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Women_screenwriters Random Passer-by (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or if it must be merged, merge with Category:Women screenwriters. It is a new sub-category, developed after an extensive discussion about the category "women writers", and it is unfair to cull it so soon. If it doesn't seem useful after reasonable time, no doubt someone will take note of that and offer it up again. And could I just say that I wish there were some way to put a grace period on new categories? There was very recently the extensive, detailed, and generally thoughtful discussion on the category of women writers that took up a lot of editors' time and energy. That discussion was the forth time the question had been revisited (#1; #2; #3. See also Category talk:Women writers). And now, within days of the most recent discussion being closed, there are two attempts to remove related subcategories, this one and ~~one here~~ [update: withdrawn by nominator]: subcategories, I might add, that many editors in the last discussion felt were essential in order to prevent "women's writing" from becoming a monster category. I sincerely hope that now that anyone reading this knows this history exists, that they will wait before making a comment here until they have read through the previous discussions. Perhaps the nominator will consider withdrawing the nomination? — scribblingwoman 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but why do we need Category:Women screenwriters? As I recall the past discussions, women related writing categories were suppose to be for specific criteria that was not simply gender based. Category:Women screenwriters appears to be simply gender based. The same applies to this nomination. Both of these also include {{popcat}} so they do not appear to be even attempting to implement criteria to address the problems raised in the previous nominations. Vegaswikian 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to Vegaswikian: If Category:Women writers exists as a legitimate category, why do we need to defend each and every subcategory? The principle that gender can affect literary production surely applies across the board? And as I reminded people, above, during the discussion of the parent category, several editors expressed fears that it would become an unwieldy category and stressed the need for sub-categories. So the rapid proliferation of sparsely populated categories is an attempt to address those concerns. Perhaps some of them will prove not to be feasible for whatever reasons. But let's give it a chance! I have been madly populating the categories that I know best and others have been working, too. If after a decent interval some categories still look weak, then we could reassess. Re. women screenwriters in particular: not my field, but a quick search turned up several studies that focused on women screenwriters, particularly in the early days of cinema. As well, there exist organizations and conferences dedicated specifically to women screenwriters. So scholars, and women screenwriters themselves, would seem to see their situation as distinct in some way. — scribbling woman 00:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Television writers - In general, I still think that articles are better for discussing discrimination against women in any career, as a list of names does not indicate anything special about the intersection of gender and line of work. Moreover, aside from the general fact that these women faced similar discrimination issues, they otherwise have little in common with each other. Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into category:Television writers. I don't know or care whether the programmes I watched tonight were written by men or women. Oliver Han 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Scribblingwoman.Keefer | Talk 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous buildings

Delete all - the categories capture buildings and structures with nothing in common beyond being named after a person, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. --rimshots^talk 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These articles have little in common and should not be grouped together. The place where I went to elementary school has nothing in common with my place of work, and they are both named after people. Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me that a large portion, if not the majority, of buildings are named after people (they're usually named after either people or cooporations). You could well end up having most buildings in the world in this category. Dugwiki 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial relationship, and definite overcategorization. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous cities

Delete all - categories capture cities with nothing in common beyond being named for a person. I'm pretty sure we've deleted categories for cities named after U.S. Presidents before but I'm not finding the old discussion. Otto4711 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eponymous cities, Listify or Delete Cities named for Lenin and Stalin. The nom.'s arguments work for Eponymous cities. The cities named for Lenin and Stalin, resp., do have something in common: being named after the same person. A list for either name would be more informative however, especially as most of these cities don't have that name anymore. A list could contain the old name, the eponymous name and the current name, together with dates of name-change. --rimshots^talk 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists for both Lenin and Stalin already exist. Otto4711 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the names, the places have little in common with each other. The cities in the subcategories are not even located in the same countries. Dr. Submillimeter
Listify cities named for Lenin and Stalin, Delete Eponymous cities. Commonality and source of place names has often been of great interest historically (for example, the numerous cities named for Alexander the Great, from Khandahar to Alexandria, Egypt help define the Hellenistic World. The naming of cities for Lenin and Stalin is meaningful, and the work of compiling these cities should be kept, though preferably in list form.A Musing 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A great number of cities are ultimately named for a person, and sharing that in common is not sufficient for a category. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms

Delete all - categories capture items with nothing in common beyond happening to be named after a person. This is overcategorization based on name. Otto4711 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - if "Eponomous theories" is kept it needs to be renamed to correct the spelling error. Otto4711 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --rimshots^talk 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The various objects described above have little in common aside from the names. For example, fettuccine alfredo has nothing in common with Melba toast, although the two combined together would probably be very tasty, especially if followed by Queen Elizabeth cake for dessert. Dr. Submillimeter 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. After you finally understand what the category name is supposed to mean, you wonder why it's worth confusing our users for something so unhelpful. EdJohnston 14:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination, and any other eponymous categories. This is just something that isn't a defining feature of anything that I can imagine. Can we add this to the policy for speedy for categories. (I don't think "listify" is even a good solution -- only in rare instances can I imagine this being actually a useful list rather than a trivial one. Naming theories, geographical features, buildings/streets/cities, pets and babies after someone is a massively common practice, notable only in rare circumstances.) --lquilter 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the other "eponymous x" categories. Being named for a person is not a defining characteristic as stated above. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Mie Prefecture

There are no villages in Mie Prefecture. What was there, is merged to other towns or cities. Former villages are categorized in Category:Dissolved municipalities of Mie Prefecture. Neier 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nom. Neier 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and superfluous category. --MChew 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Ishikawa Prefecture

There are no villages in Ishikawa Prefecture. What was there, is merged to other towns or cities. Former villages are categorized in Category:Dissolved municipalities of Ishikawa Prefecture. Neier 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom Neier 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and superfluous category. --MChew 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CLAMP images

Propose renaming Category:CLAMP images to Category:Clamp manga images

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, There is a capitalization issue here, which has been resolved already on the main article and category. This rename was previously a speedy, under the ill-conceived name of "Clamp (manga artists) images", based on the parent cat. However, the suggestion made in the speedy nomination was a good one, and I'll recommend it here. Neier 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not all images are from manga. Suggest instead Category:Clamp manga and adaptation images. 132.205.44.134 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews who converted to Christianity

I believe this was deleted once before and that I nominated it. This time I see it has a version in another language Wikipedia so I'm less sure. Still this seems like it'd lead to a proliferation of "X to Y" conversion categories based on offshoot faiths like say; Category:Hindus who converted to Buddhism or Category:Muslims who converted to Baha'i.--T. Anthony 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see your point, but (a) there are far more obscure categories, (b) so what? if a category can be populated with 10-20 names that makes it useful (c) it adds useful information and (d) wikipedia is not paper - we have plenty of room for all the categories you say we might end up with. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- obviously a valid category. It's a shame that closely related/identical data was lost when the former Category:Jewish Christians was recently deleted...so, is there a way to recover the data that was found in that former category and begin transferring the names to this one? --Wassermann 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion discussion for Category:Jewish Christians shows some arguments against and for this category as well. --rimshots^talk 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Category:Christians of Jewish ethnicity" - the problem with many debates on WP:CFD at present is what is the defining criteria for inclusion, or its alter argument of too vague. If we defined the categories names better in the first place, then perhaps many of the debates would be clearer. From the previous discussion re the deletion of Category:Jewish Christians I really like BrownHairedGirl's proposal as it says what is trying to be defined/enclosed within the category. Rgds, - Trident13 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was indeed deleted before. The main reason was the potential for the staggering amounts of X converted Y categories, where X and Y are for ever conceivable religion. Arnoutf 17:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of deleted category and per Arnoutf, are we going to have Category:Jews who converted to Christianity and then converted to Islam and then to Scientology? There are already lists of List of converts to Christianity, Converts to Islam, which are or should be referenced, categories are less valuable for that. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Projects by type

Delete - See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9#Category:Projects. This is effectively an attempt to rename Category:Projects. However, it still brings together unrelated things with a shared common name. For example, Category:Building projects does not contain articles that are related to Category:Research projects aside from the fact that both things could be described as "projects". This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see why these categories need to be together. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — People with an interest in project management will be interested in different types and examples of projects. See Project#Project_types for examples of categorization in the existing project article. Thus I contend that these are related, just as very different types of system are related under Category:Systems, for example. — Jonathan Bowen 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First, I really do not believe your argument. A research project that I start in my office is not at all similar to a construction project started by a company on the other side of London. Second, Category:Systems suffers from the same problems as this category, so I have nominated it for deletion as well. Dr. Submillimeter 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — I think "research project" (or any other project for that matter) in this (Wikipedia) context means one that is notable (i.e., not an individual project). Any projects listed here should be notable enough to require project management (in my view). — Jonathan Bowen 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astronomers by religion

Delete - The categorization of people by religion and occupation is generally inappropriate, as religion usually has little influence on people's careers. Specifically in astronomy, I know from personal experience as a professional astronomer that religion has little to do with people's careers in the field. Religion is not mentioned in any of my professional papers, nor is it mentioned in anyone else's professional astronomical publications. The professional astronomers whom I have known to participate in religious worship generally keep religion separate from their occupation. Generally, I cannot tell if my co-workers are religious unless they tell me. This category tree is highly inappropriate, and it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I personally would object to being categorized as an astronomer of a specific religion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine, but many people would object to being categorized in all kinds of ways and traditionally that's not been a factor. There are likely a few names in Category:Gay writers or Category:Blind musicians who would not like being linked as such. In addition there are astronomers who worked in Islamic science or for the Vatican Observatory. Still whatever.--T. Anthony 09:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actually, it just occurred to me that I do know a few employees of the Vatican Observatory, and that religion does have an influence on their careers but not on their research; I would not be able to distinguish between their research work and the research of other astronomers. However, these people should be classified as "Astronomers of the Vatican Observatory" rather than "Christian astronomers". The vast number of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, new age, and other astronomers that I know still are not influenced by religion in their work. Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

I'd prefer to use intersection categories only if there is some there is some true categorization cohesion. Not just lesbian left-handed authors from ottowa and the like. But categorization on en: is broken beyond repair already -- see the discussion on wikien-l.

In the specific case of religious subcategories, there was once the sensible compromise, to use the religion tags only on people known for their religious beliefs.

Pjacobi 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

If this was a list of astronomers who were also notable for their religious beliefs, then it might have some use, but otherwise it doesn't make much sense. You may as well have a list of left-handed or banjo-playing astronomers. Chrislintott 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an historically important division, but not now, sbandrews (t) 10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could specify time as well I might do that, but I don't know how time specific categories fare. Like Category:Muslim astronomers during the Caliphate might be a bit more plausible, but might also be too wordy.--T. Anthony 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- thinking more about it I'm not even sure it was an historically important division, but if you could show it to be so you should propose to move it to, e.g. rennaissance astronomers by religion or some such. sbandrews (t) 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Too often) irrelevant intersection. AshbyJnr 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the reasons mentioned above. Also, the list won't be accurate anyway, you'll miss a large number of religious astronomers who don't openly discuss their religion. Count Iblis 12:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as irrelevant intersection. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical reasons. Obviously nowadays when most astronomers/scientists are atheists or very skeptical of religion this category is not very applicable; however, in a historical sense this category could be very useful. --Wassermann 13:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most astronomers have lived quite recently, due to the proliferation of academic posts, and this category is not relevant to them. Brandon97 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've heard of archaeoastronomy right? There is a long history of astronomers you know.--T. Anthony 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and per User:Pjacobi's comment on 'lesbian left-handed authors from Ottawa.' It can be alarming to read an article where someone's religious affiliation is unexpectedly announced in a context where it doesn't seem relevant. Here, the lack of relevance is pretty clear and we can avoid the problem completely just by not allowing the category. EdJohnston 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at some of the articles in the category I see a few that don't cite sources to show that the person's religion is verifiable. How to verify religion unless the person has published on the topic? For a couple they mention that they were Jesuits, but there is already a Category:Jesuits. Another astronomer is mentioned as a clergyman, but there is also a Category:English clergy. Astronomers by religion is redundant since for each bio a person can be listed in multiple categories that are aplicable, and this has already been done for many of the articles in these cats. Should there be a Category: Astronomers who are outspoken aetheists? What next? Category: Bangladeshi Christian Women Amateur Astronomers who discovered comets in the 20th century?--mikeu 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference--mikeu 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Boy, I have to cite that a lot. Doczilla 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that for those people where it's important they can be in for instance Category:Jesuits and Category:Astronomers. Categories exist to help navigation, which means that members need demonstrably more than coincidental commonalities. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I could only see this category as interesting if it specifically focused on priest-astronomers, such as Christopher Clavius. Oitherwise it's about as relevant as kick-boxing astronomers. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kompleks Sukan Negara

Propose renaming Category:Kompleks Sukan Negara to Category:National Sports Complex, Malaysia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to change language from Malay to English. The English Wikipedia is more likely to attract English readers than Malay ones. Two hundred percent 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasallian Schools Press Conference

Narrow inclusion criteria. I'd recommend upmerging to Category:Lasallian student publications, but the sole article is this category is already in that one as well. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 05:47Z

Delete There is no need for this publication to have a category. AshbyJnr 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless categorisation; it is difficult to think of a single other article which could be in it. Sam Blacketer 11:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of very limited potential for growth. --rimshots^talk 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression

Delete as non-defining. When professionals refer to clinical depression as "the common cold of mental illness" because it's the most frequently diagnosed specific mental illness, then it's too common to be a defining feature for most people. Doczilla 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I considered nominating this before but passed. However, Doczilla's comment on the ubiquitousness of this diagnosis leads me to believe that this is not noteworthy enough to use for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also because of likelihood of temporality concerns and multiple conflicting diagnoses. --lquilter 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impolite to emphasise negative characteristics. Oliver Han 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto Submillimeter's comments; these categories are ripe for deletion. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with glioblastoma multiforme

Delete single-member category of limited usefulness. Doczilla 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ok with merging the included article into another appropriate category. But note that if the category is simply deleted it leaves the included article orphaned with no category. So if it's deleted you'll need to use another broader disease related category to replace it. Dugwiki 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The article is already a member of several other categories. You're right about the need for a medical cat, though. I added the article to cancer deaths because this disorder is a form of cancer. Doczilla 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People are not notable for having diseases but for their other actions. The one person in this category, however, is an advocate for cancer patients and should be categorized accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games

Propose renaming Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games to Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, after precedent set by CFR for parent, which was like the current name of the category without the Cancelled. Consistency and conventions possibly the only need for such, as the key article is titled Mega Drive as well. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --rimshots^talk 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real-time tactical computer games

Propose renaming Category:Real-time tactical computer games to Category:Real-time tactics video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I think the old CVG (computer and video game) project is transitioning to VG (video game). I'm also trying to make it look more like Category:Turn-based tactics games. The main article also uses the word 'tactics' instead of 'tactical'.SharkD 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tactical role-playing games

Propose renaming Category:Tactical role-playing games to Category:Tactical role-playing video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category is for video games only. SharkD 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with this change Ominae 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Behaviour modification

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 07:15Z

Subjective inclusion criteria; ~~arguably duplicates Category:Alternative education and maybe even Category:Education. Doesn't education ultimately seek to "modify behaviour"?~~ —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 01:38Z

Per the creator's comment on Category talk:Behaviour modification I believe it is a duplicate of Category:Punishment or one of its sub-categories. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 05:54Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Corporate ethics

Vague inclusion criteria. We already have a category for Corporate crime which has more definite inclusion criteria (and which this one used to be categorised under. [1]) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 01:26Z

Delete per nom - not a lot else to say. Rgds, - Trident13 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]