Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 28

< July 27	July 29 >

July 28

Category:Songs from Les Misérables

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - all of the song articles were merged into a single article and the category is empty except ofr redirects. Category is not needed. Otto4711 22:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes sense to me. This category can at this time only ~~ever~~ be populated by the one article which includes all of the songs. -- But|seriously|folks 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if/when someone writes a valid stand-alone article (i.e., sourced, providing real-world context, and proving notability) on one or more of the songs. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per Black Falcon. Xtifr _tälk 07:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:New Jersey County Templates

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a duplicate of the Category:New Jersey county navigational boxes. VerruckteDan 20:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; redundant to Category:New Jersey county navigational boxes. Heather 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Music-related visual artists

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Music-related visual artists to Category:Album-cover and Concert-poster artists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, vague, better suited to textual explanation if there is in fact a consistent, meaningful relationship among the included individuals. The category description currently reads "A collection of visual artists whose work is associated with music." Unless we now have a habit of using the boundary-less terms "related" or "associated" as category criteria, this is inappropriate as a category. Postdlf 20:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; would only make sense if "music-related visual" were an actual artistic discipline. Heather 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather, this is an occupation category, not an art genre one. See the two parent categories. Johnbod 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dominictimms 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe rename to ? A perfectly acceptable category for people who specialize in artwork for the music industry - covers, posters etc. The "consistent, meaningful relationship" the nominator seeks is that they all presumably make a good living doing the same thing, which is all that is required in an occupation category. "Album-cover designers" might cover all of them. The current name is not very snappy. Johnbod 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objections if you want to create such a category, but that's simply not what this one is. Postdlf 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? Johnbod 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why not what? Why doesn't "music-related visual artists" mean the same thing as "album cover designers"? That's honestly not what you're asking, is it? Postdlf 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - On a quick look, all these people that I checked seemed to be album-cover designers, plus posters etc. I'm not sure what your problem with the category is, assuming you have taken on board that it is an occupational one. Is it that there is (probably) no "Association of Certified Music-related Visual Artists"? Neither the art nor music worlds operate this way. More than likely this is something you can do university courses in, find directories for, go to awards ceremonies for etc. The parent categories are VA occupations and music industry occupations & the category title is generalised but not I think inappropriately so. Johnbod 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, I don't object to a properly specific category, so create whichever one you want. "Renaming" a category just means that the category is deleted and all of its contents moved to a new one. "X-related" is simply inacceptable to have in a category name because anything can be related to anything else for any number of reasons. If the category is "really" for album cover and poster artists (i.e., that's how it has been used), then a category properly and expressly reflecting that defining criteria should replace this one. Postdlf 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You nominated the category for deletion. Now it appears you just want it renamed. It also sounds as if you felt no responsibility to look and see what the category actually contained before nominating it. Johnbod 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, um, let's not make this personal for no apparent reason. The present category does in fact contain more than just album cover/band poster designers, as Psymbolic, Elle Nicolai, and Christian Marclay are no such thing according to their articles. I was simply trying to be agreeable by saying that whatever objections I have to this category would not extend to an album cover designer specific category, if you wanted to create such a thing. Postdlf 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well those three seem to be miscategorised, the last belonging in the sub-category Category:Visual music artists (not mentioned in your nomination). The other two seem adequately categorised in other cats. I won't remove them, or add Carlos' suggestions below, whilst the debate is in progress. Johnbod 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename to Category:Album-cover and Concert-poster artists, or something along those lines: I see real potential for growth in this category, many notable artists of iconic 1960s psychedelic concert posters aren't yet in this category and some don't have articles yet: e.g., Alton Kelly, Stanley Mouse, Wes Wilson, Robert Crumb, Ray Anderson, Rick Griffin, Rob Brown, Victor Moscoso and many others. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Album-cover and Concert-poster artists per Carlossuarez46, and remove those few entries that don't meet the definition (and add the ones identified by Carlos, as well as Roger Dean (artist)). Seems like an excellent compromise, and very sensible. Xtifr _tälk 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Carlos's rename. The sub-cat Category:Visual music artists, for performance artists and the like whose work combines musical & visual elements, then needs to be detatched from this category. Johnbod 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Super Junior

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, pointless eponymous category. The nav template used in all articles should be more than sufficient. PC78 19:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is overcategorisation taken to its extreme. About as unnecessary as they come. Heather 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two subcategories on a closely related topic, so they should be grouped together. Abberley2 17:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Articles are all interlinked and the category is not warranted for this material. Otto4711 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with any eponymous category with two subcategories. Postlebury 10:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many precedents on eponimy. >Radiant< 12:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Professions who committed suicide

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists who committed suicide

Category:Actors who committed suicide

Category:Ancient people who committed suicide

Category:Architects who committed suicide

Category:Aviators who committed suicide

Category:Businesspeople who committed suicide

Category:Chefs who committed suicide

Category:Designers who committed suicide

Category:Doctors who committed suicide

Category:Entertainers who committed suicide

Category:Explorers who committed suicide

Category:Inventors who committed suicide

Category:Journalists who committed suicide

Category:Judges who committed suicide

Category:Jurists who committed suicide

Category:Law enforcers who committed suicide

Category:Lobbyists who committed suicide

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide

Category:Military personnel who committed suicide

Category:Models who committed suicide

Category:Nobility who committed suicide

Category:Politicians who committed suicide

Category:Religious people who committed suicide

Category:Revolutionaries who committed suicide

Category:Royalty who committed suicide

Category:Scientists who committed suicide

Category:Socialites who committed suicide

Category:Spies who committed suicide

Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide

Nominator's rationale: Unusual form of overcategorization. Almost seems like it's pushing some sort of agenda that [given profession] are more prone to suicide. Or their suicides are somehow more notable. Bulldog123 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have no opinion yet on the validity of the category, I just want to note that Category:Suicides includes nearly three dozen "suicides by profession" subcategories. I think any nomination should consider all of them at once. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanted to test the waters because mass nominations almost always fail, but I'm not opposed to someone adding them onto here. Bulldog123 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. I just wanted to note that in response to your "almost seems like it's pushing some sort of agenda" comment. I rarely visit CfD, so I wouldn't know much about the advantages to and drawbacks of mass noms. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's true. My statement didn't make much sense since I wasn't aware so many existed. I just thought a few did but they apparently weren't all in the same category. Bulldog123 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've left out Category:Musicians who committed suicide, Category:Writers who committed suicide, Category:Artists who committed suicide, and Category:Criminals who committed suicide so they can be judged separately. Bulldog123 19:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Although we don't categorize dead people by their occupation (look at the dreaded dead wrestler articles/categories, for example), I don't think catergorizing suicides by profession is overcategorization. Each category, is also a sub-cat of the occupation it refers to, IE Category:Actors who committed suicide is really a sub-cat of Category:Actors, etc, and the suicide by profession catergories are a by-product of this. Also just lumping them all into the top level of Category:Suicides just doesn't seem right. Lugnuts 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These are categories with two natural parents, and putting them into category:Suicides will make a tragically colossal category.--Mike Selinker 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as I can see, only Category:Inventors who committed suicide is actually tagged at the moment.Lugnuts 08:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Mike Selinker, they are part of a comprehensive categorization scheme. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all causes of death categories. Cause of death is not a defining characteristic. - Gilliam 06:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is a truly ironic statement. After all, few things are more important in a person's life than their death. How someone dies can be an extremely notable portion of their biography, and even in cases where someone dies of old age their cause of death is almost always listed in their official biographies. Cause of death is, therefore, quite defining. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Suicides by occupation" seems to me like it was started to make a statement about a particular few professions for which suicides may have been well-publicized, and the rest ("inventors who committed suicide") just got created to fill in the gaps. Contrary to the above comments that this is part of a comprehensive scheme, to my knowledge these are the only "occupation by cause of death" categories. Also, removing these would not leave the parent category Category:Suicides flooded, as there is still Category:Suicides by method, and breaking down by nationality ("Americans who committed suicide") makes perfect sense. Just food for thought; I don't have a strong enough preference to vote. But I personally find the "suicides by method" category scheme far more interesting than by occupation. Postdlf 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- category:Murder victims is also broken down this way.--Mike Selinker 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the only statement it was trying to make was that Category:Suicides was too large and needed to be brought under control. There was a subcategory created for every occupation that had entries in the parent. Bearcat 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LISTIFY the lot of them, because a list can contain additional information such as means of suicide, age at the time, possible suspected murder, etc. A category cannot, hence a list is clearly the more comprehensive way of displaying this information. >Radiant< 12:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable enough categorization scheme, and while iffy as subcategories of "Suicides," they make perfect sense as subcategories of "Actors," etc. Re the listification suggestion: listification is usually a good option for messy inclusion criteria that require explanation. Inclusion into this category is clear-cut: a confirmed suicide. So there's no problem with the category. In fact, lists for this would probably be AfD bait, because they'd be hopelessly incomplete and more like "list of Xes with a Wikipedia article who committed suicide plus trivia." I fail to see how other information such as age and style of suicide is remotely relevant for such lists by profession, unlike, say, lists of performers in a television show which could be categorized by season, role, and other relevant list information. SnowFire 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. Why not Methodists who committed suicide? Vegans who committed suicide? Wryspy 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some and delete others - To begin with, Bulldog123's statement that "Almost seems like it's pushing some sort of agenda that [given profession] are more prone to suicide" is merely his personal view — in essence, a product of his imagination which he is somehow reading into these cats. I also think it was inappropriate to nominate such a large number of cats for deletion in one group, since that reinforces the impression that they were all created for the imagined purpose that was suggested, and also makes it awfully hard to deal with them individually.

I took the time to scrutinize all 29 of these categories, checking into their contents, and giving serious thought to each of them on an individual basis. These are my findings, which I have summarized to keep this to a reasonable length:

For about half of the categories, I believe there is a sound rationale for their existence and retention. However, I do not feel that such a rationale exists for the remainder.

Categories which should be kept generally fall into three very loose basic groupings: 1) Individuals whose lives were "high profile", who were "in the public eye" for a variety of reasons (e.g. actors, royalty, sportspeople, etc.), whose suicides were thus widely noted and of interest to large numbers of people; 2) Individuals who, because of their occupations, had significant official or "semi-official" interactions with or on behalf of the public (e.g. politicians, journalists), whose suicides would naturally raise a variety of concerns/questions; and 3) Individuals who devoted their lives to creating a better existence for their fellow humans (e.g. activists, revolutionaries, religious people), and whose suicides were, therefore, in utter contrast to their lives/beliefs. In addition, Spies are somewhat of a special case; their manner/cause of death is intrinsically of interest.

Categories which do not merit retention are by and large for occupations which don't fall into any of the aforementioned groupings. In general, the private lives of these individuals were of no particular interest, and their public lives (if any) of no great concern. Their suicides were essentially private matters that generally bear no relation to their notability; thus there is no compelling rationale for such categories. Also, "Military personnel" is such a vast catch-all category that it's quite meaningless, in this context. In addition, there are several cats which suffer from other defects (too few pages, etc.)

My specific recommendations:

Keep the following categories:

Category:Activists who committed suicide
Category:Actors who committed suicide
Category:Entertainers who committed suicide
Category:Journalists who committed suicide
Category:Jurists who committed suicide
Category:Law enforcers who committed suicide
Category:Models who committed suicide
Category:Nobility who committed suicide
Category:Politicians who committed suicide
Category:Religious people who committed suicide
Category:Revolutionaries who committed suicide
Category:Royalty who committed suicide
Category:Socialites who committed suicide
Category:Spies who committed suicide
Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide

Delete (and upmerge) the following categories:

Category:Ancient people who committed suicide
Category:Architects who committed suicide
Category:Aviators who committed suicide
Category:Businesspeople who committed suicide
Category:Chefs who committed suicide
Category:Designers who committed suicide
Category:Doctors who committed suicide
Category:Explorers who committed suicide
Category:Inventors who committed suicide
Category:Judges who committed suicide
Category:Lobbyists who committed suicide
Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide
Category:Military personnel who committed suicide
Category:Scientists who committed suicide

As I said, I summarized my analysis of all of this, so I've left out a lot of particulars pertaining to individual categories; and the groupings I listed were the best I could come up with short of writing a dissertation. No doubt people will differ with one or another of my assessments of individual categories, but I think the general principles I've sketched out are a reasonably good basis on which to evaluate them and make a decision. At the very least, a good starting point for further discussion.

Cgingold 14:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, my judgements here were not influenced by my personal interests. Personally, I'm much more interested in doctors and scientists who have committed suicide than I am in most of the other categories. But I still don't think they really merit subcats of their own. Cgingold 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I do not see why the public nature of a profession should matter, and Category:Ancient people who committed suicide (rename to Suicides under the Roman Empire?) contain people like Cleopatra or Brutus, whose suicide is part of their notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (assuming notability of the claim, as always), though we need to somewhere articulate a clear approach to whether categorisation for the sake of organisation must always be a comment on content, or whether it is always OCAT. Tewfik^Talk 17:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Asexual and Antisexual People

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure whether this category ought to be deleted, renamed to Category:Asexual and antisexual people (to fix capitalisation), or split into Category:Asexual people and Category:Antisexual people. Thus, the purpose of this nomination is to solicit discussion on the matter and, in particular, to ascertain whether there is any kind of precedent for this type of category (people by sexuality). At present, I offer no opinion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: There are articles for homosexual people and bisexual people, why not asexual/antisexuals. (Tigerghost 19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- What about the suggestion to split? At the least, the category must be renamed to fix the capitalisation issue. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just not needed. Wikipedia is not a sexual therapy workshop. Dominictimms 22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unnecessary as a category, unmaintainable, and prone to BLP difficulties. Heather 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How come the bisexual musicians category isn't up for deletion? is it unmaintainable? The other categories related to famous peoples' sexual orientations should be deleted too if wikipedia has rules from becoming a "sexual therapy workshop". I will support deletion of the Bisexual category too, if this one is deleted. Thank you... no offense taken of course, i just want to be fare. I'll support spliting it however. (Tigerghost 05:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - Comment. I would have no objection to that (although the line of reasoning might border on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Heather 15:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can nominate any sexuality category you like. The whole lot should be deleted. But their existence is no defense of this category. Abberley2 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining, trivial, possibly POV. Abberley2 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Wryspy 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Journalist in Goa India stubs

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Obviously mis-formatted; text has been copied to new article Preetu Nair. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of speedying this, per general obviousness. Alai 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Indian afghans

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Indians of Afghan descent --Kbdank71 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the confusing name, this category is actually for Indian people of Afghan ancestry.

Rename to Category:Afghan-Indians, or Category:Indians of Afghan descent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Afghan Indians.Baka man 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something, but Category:Indians of Afghan descent is much clearer. Johnbod 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. usage of 'by descent' categories based on modern categories becomes a bit clumpsy in South Asian context. Of course, Indians of Afghan descent is far better than 'Indians of Nepali/Pakistani/Bangladeshi' descent, but not uncomplicated. Using 'Aghan Indians' as a euphemism for people of Pashtun origin is not really good, as Pashtuns is a major ethnic group in the area that was British India. --Soman 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Prove It, though I agree with Soman that a more specific type of categorisation by ethnicity would be better than categorising by a theoretical Afghan catch-all nationality. Tewfik^Talk 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional parents

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Block, as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - those are exceedingly brief, insubstantial discussions - your basic I don't like it discussions. It doesn't look like anyone nominating this has ever gone to the trouble of notifying those using it, or getting a substantive discussion sparked. I'd keep it and not block it based on the lack of substance in the discussion to day.A Musing 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - in most instances a fictional character is not defined by being or not being a parent and the number of characters not so defined is so enormous as to make the category functionally useless while adding a clutterful category to the articles. Otto4711 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is so broad as to be pointless, just like Category:Parents. Postlebury 10:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. >Radiant< 12:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation of excessively broad cat. Wryspy 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Palestine-related articles needing attention

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of both Category:Israel-related articles needing attention and Category:Palestine-related articles needing attention per, bad faith POV contributing cats to the wikipedia project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AGF, but abuse of categories nonetheless and this is that the the project page is for. No classification given to which articles are supposed to be in these cats or if they are supposed to be populated with controversial articles that pro-XYZ should watch out for? --Shuki 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me roll back a bit. There is actually super cat 'articles needing attention'. IMO, it's lame and a bit redundant unless on a specifc article not multiple articles under a project. Delete the Israel 'articles needing attn cat'. I think it's debasing. --Shuki 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is really a bigger problem in the hierarchy where categories related to wither the Palestinian people, Palestinian territories, and other related topics are labelled as Palestine, which instead refers to a historic region. Scoping needs to be clarified, and previously embraced naming standards should be applied. Tewfik^Talk 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Songs by country

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by country to Category:Songs by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Rename, As for books and novels below. There is a slight distinction between country and nation, with the use of country preferred for geographical meanings and nation for political and cultural uses. Tim! 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Songs don't have a nationality. Abberley2 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. All members seem to be nation states (allowing for the usual 4 UK categories) Johnbod 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abberley2. Greg Grahame 11:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per above and examine other "Inanimate objects by nationality" category schemes. Otto4711 18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to opposers: nationality does not apply solely to people: dictionary.com amongst others gives an additional meaning "the relationship of property, holdings, etc., to a particular nation, or to one or more of its members: the nationality of a ship." [1] Tim! 19:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ronald Reagan films

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As part of the standard set by not having films categorized by actors. See this CFD for an example. Lugnuts 09:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dominictimms 14:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom Bulldog123 18:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Films by actor is unworkable, since many films would properly belong to dozens of actor categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't this a proper subcategory of Category:Films by president? :) Sorry. Delete per nom and extensive ~~president~~ precedent. Xtifr _tälk 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Books by country

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep (no rename). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books by country to Category:Books by nationality

and Category:Novels by country to Category:Novels by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Rename, something like Category:American books must mean the author is American rather than the book is published in the United States, so the parent should be books by nationality rather than by country. Tim! 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Books don't have a nationality, the author does. Surely it is a given that a novel is classified by the nationality of its author. Dominictimms 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In publishing, language, and then country, of first publication is the normal way to look at it. Authors have all sorts of passports, and some books have many authors. The descriptions on the categories aren't much help, but the novels one says it is "by country of origin" which sounds more like country of first publication to me. Compare films - if its made by a US studio, and released there, it's American, regardless of the nationality of any of the participants, or indeed the shooting ___location. Johnbod 22:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dominictimms. Abberley2 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Greg Grahame 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per above and examine other "Inanimate objects by nationality" category schemes. Otto4711 18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, I hope, immaterial objects. Johnbod 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to opposers: nationality does not apply solely to people: dictionary.com amongst others gives an additional meaning "the relationship of property, holdings, etc., to a particular nation, or to one or more of its members: the nationality of a ship." [2] Tim! 19:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a very helpful analogy; ships and companies have to be registered in a country, and buildings are necessarily located in one. Books are not the same. Johnbod 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bengali People by occupation and Basque Mathematicians

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Bengali 'categories' into Indian or Bangladeshi scientists. Scientists are based on nationality not ethnics groups. Then Delete all categories as being overcategorized and per Non-notable intersections. For the same reason, we don't have categories like Bavarian scientists or Saxon scientists when German scientists will cover it. See also German-American sportspeople --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 08:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge and delete per nom, ethnic categories for scientists and sportspeople is a trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - How would you classify, say, Jagadish Chandra Bose? He died in 1937, and neither Republic of India, nor Bangladesh existed at that moment. "Indian scientists" represent people who are citizens of India or of Indian heritage. So, no pre-1947 people can fall into that category. Bengal is a divided region, but culturally, they are a distinct ethnic group. As an example, we already have Category:English_astronomers. You may argue that here England is a nationality, but it isn't ... "British" would be the nationality. Similarly, Bengal, which used to be a single region, would qualify in the same way as Category:English_astronomers did (referring to the time "English" was the nationality (which as I can tell, was many years ago). Other examples include Category:Scottish_mathematicians. As far as I know, Scottish isn't an independent nationality (people of Scotland are "British" when it comes to nationality, and Scottish when it comes to ethnicity). So, I strongly oppose this proposal. --Ragib 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There will always be an anachronism issue in categorizing by country: Was Galileo Italian? No, he was Pisan. Should we create categories for every former state to put its notables in? A good question, but so far the consensus has been not to. Anachronism also comes into play in ethnicity: of what ethnicity was William the Conqueror? Norman? Norse? French? Even English would likely have some supporters. If Norman was an ethnicity, isn't it still so? And people from that part of France should get split off and categorized as Normans. The ethnicities as we recognize them today were not necessarily the same in the past. They change over time. Bavaria, another example used in this debate, was the land settled or rule by the Baiovarii, a Germanic tribe - like the Angles, Saxons, and Danes, and with perhaps as much claim to "ethnicity" as those, and Bavaria was a separate nation state until the 1800s, and still had a king until 1918, so do we go and find who was from Bavaria pre-1918 or pre-1871 and remove them from the anachronistic "German" categories? No, until we have consensus to undo the categorization by current state, rather than by ethnicity, those whose prior state doesn't have a category. Carlossuarez46 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ragib If merged it must be merged properly, ie also to Category:Bengali people, and setting up categories where necessary, as there are far more of these than Bangladeshi categories. Unlike being Bavarian, Bengali is certainly an ethnicity, and it is an ethnicity tree which these categories are sub-cats of, as well as the scientist tree. The nominator is proposing removing them from one tree entirely, without seeming to recognise this in the nomination rationale. Johnbod 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bengali is an ethnicity, among the many large ones in south asia. Categories like Indian scientists, and others would be subject to overflow is these ethnic categories were not there to organize information. However delete the astronomers, physicists, and chemists cats, because those are overkill.Baka man 23:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment England , Scotland are Constituent countries of the UK. That means they are a State within a state. Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland have their own parliaments as well. They are all separate countries. Hence categories like English astronomers are justified.But Bengal not being a separate nation, cannot be categorized as such

Regarding JC Bose, we could have a category for such people in as Category:British Indian scientists or something like that. Or we could have 2 categories for him as Bengali people and scientists. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think a british indian scientists category would be appropriate. However I fail to see any flaw in the Bengali scientists category, as Bengalis can be either Indian or Bangladeshi and furthermore, because ethnic based cats have been a very good solution to overcrowding of biographies in South Asian articlespace.Baka man 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Johnbod and Bakaman. I agree with Bakaman that the subcats are "overkill", with the exception of Bengali physicists, which has 7 entries. Cgingold 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Basque mathematicians which seems to have gotten in here by accident. The only member, from the sixteenth century, is "of Basque origin"; which is likely (but not certain) to be a claim about descent) Was he Gascon? Navarese? what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as while I appreciate Carlos' points, I don't see a better solution for categorising pre/proto-national topics other than by ethnicity, or perhaps region (in this case they are the same). Another topic that could use a consistent approach. Tewfik^Talk 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bengal was historic province of India, which was partitioned inot West Bengal (now part of India) and East Bengal (now Bangladesh). Bengali is also a language, which is (I believe) spoken by many residents of both halves of the old province. Pre-partition scientists from either part of Bengal should be in this category, as might those from West Bengal post-partition. I would suggest that these categories become subcategories of Indian Scientists. The inclusion of a Basque category in this nomination is inappropriate and it should be relisted separately. Peterkingiron 18:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series and characters

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series and characters to Category:Television series by Hanna-Barbera

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The characters need to be split off into their own category and Cartoon Network Studios can probably act as a sub category (if it's really necessary with Category:Cartoon Network shows existing). The bulk of the current articles in the category are the pure Hanna-Barbera series, so that is the best one to work from. TTN 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Animated characters hierarchy, though some of the entries belong in Category:Cartoon Network shows exclusively. Tewfik^Talk 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:MTV News correspondents

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:MTV News correspondents to Category:American television reporters and correspondents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American television reporters and correspondents, this is performer by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. There is already a list at MTV News. Postdlf 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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