< April 23	April 25 >

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 delete (merely counting votes would suggest "no consensus", but the arguments to delete are substantial, and the keep arguments are weak). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original CFD here resuling in deletion. Overturned at DRV here. This is a relisting per that DRV. The reasons for deletion as stated in the original nomination still stand. This is an eponymous category which is unnecessary to link the brothers together because of the extensive interlinkages between the articles on the brothers, the Marx Brothers article, the articles and navtemplate for the films and so on. There was one objection in an otherwise unanimous CFD.
DRV was initiated on the possibility of the category being an exception to the consensus against eponymous categories. That exception, found here, states The main exception to this rule would be where Wikipedia's coverage of the person in question is split into multiple directly linked subarticles, articles which cannot otherwise be reasonably categorized. and offers as examples Category:Jan Smuts and Category:Ronald Reagan. There was no support for this position at DRV. No one else who commented in support of the category cited the exception.
The next objection raised was that the category provided a useful way to navigate between articles on the brothers and their works. As noted, the articles are extensively interlinked. Additionally, wanting the category for purposes of categorizing the films and other works of the brothers goes against the strong consensus of not categorizing people by the films they appear in or films by the people who appear in them.
The next objection raised was that the nomination, because it was part of a group of four categories nominated together, was somehow "flawed" to the point where the CFD was invalidated. I find no policy, procedure or guideline that indicates that a mass nomination of this type is to be considered "flawed." Indeed, there are mass nominations done every day in CFD. The other three categories were also under the parent Category:Hollywood families and were nominated together because they were all of the categories there beginning with the letter M.
The next objection was that the Marx Brothers are a "Hollywood institution, like the Warner Brothers." However, there is no Category:Hollywood institutions and no possible objective definition of a "Hollywood institution." Additionally, there is no category for the Warner brothers, either as a studio or as a family. There is no indication that such a category or a "Hollywood institutions" parent would survive CFD so citing it as a reason to keep this category is suspect.
The final objection raised was that one of the people who read the nomination misunderstood that it was for the Marx Brothers, again citing the "Hollywood institution" argument. Even if that person had !voted to keep this category, extensive precedent against this sort of categorization should have led to a closure of "delete" in the absence of any evidence that "Hollywood institution" is any sort of valid categorization scheme.
The original reasons for the nomination remain valid, the category is unnecessary, no valid argument for keeping the category was advanced either at CFD or DRV. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major group with lots of articles relating to it.--Mike Selinker 06:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No firm opinion. Not a case of 'films starring actor' though, strong connection between all works. Discussion of related issues might be better resolved elsewhere. Please keep it simple and quote guidelines and reasons in a relevant way. Happy editing Fred 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this appears to have been pre-emptively empted making it hard to judge whether the category should be kept. Please whoever emptied undo their action, or at least provide some inkling of what the contents were. Tim! 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Category:Marx Brothers (film series) and the Marx brothers, with the template for articles about the brothers themselves and the films, provide the right navigational aides. I note I only became convinced of this after a fair bit of back and forth, reflected in the DRV discussion.A Musing 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category will be well populated, and serves as a parallel subcategory within its supercategories. Moreover, it's an obvious category, to anyone who isn't neck-deep in WPness. Newcomers will rightly wonder why it's NOT there, and will -- I predict -- repeatedly rebuild it. Give it a couple of weeks, at least, to populate before killing it. Don't discourage good-faith category building. --TheEditrix2 01:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The category will be well populated." With what exactly? "Newcomers will rightly wonder why it's not there." What does that have to do with whether the category violates policy or guidelines? "Newcomers...will repeatedly recreate it." If they do then the category can be salted so they can't recreate it. Otto4711 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When the category got restored, it should have been repopulated. If anyone emptied it since restoration, that was inappropriate. Doczilla 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was empty when I nominated it. Otto4711 12:23, 30 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 12:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Christian literature and its other sub-cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Christian literature per nom. Only 2 articles in this category (unless it was recently depopulated), and otherwise redundant with better populated categories. -Andrew c 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is the appropriate parent category for articles about Christian books. I have added two subcategories to it. Haddiscoe 11:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should mention that we also have Category:Christian fiction and allegory, Category:Christian studies books, and Category:Christian texts, which cover any type of written Christian literature. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a matter of what it covers, but of its role in the navigational system. Category:Books is part of the category tree, and it should have a subcategory for a broad field like Christianity. Haddiscoe 13:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Christian literature per nom. Categorizing on "Book" is an odd idea the literature or it's form is more helpful concept. "A" method of delivery is not adding much. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Christian literature per nom. feydey 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haddiscoe. Greg Grahame 10:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haddiscoe. -Sean Curtin 08:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Christian literature per nom. Two articles seems over categorisation. Rgds, --Trident13 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with other recent deletions of eponymous TV series categories, for example two for Medium, this category has insufficient material to warrant it. The two subcats, the two articles and the template are all appropriatley categorized elsewhere and the articles and template are all extensively interlinked with each other and with all other relevant articles on actors, characters, episodes and so on. The category is not needed as a navigational hub and should be deleted. Otto4711 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a necessary eponymous category as described above. Dugwiki 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The characters subcategory and episodes subcategory do not by themselves require an eponymous series category since they appear in Category:Television characters by series and Category:Episodes by television series respectively. That leaves only two articles: the main article itself and the article American Dad! DVDs. The DvD article is questionable to begin with (do we normally create specific articles on individual DvD collections?) But even if you assume the DvD article is legit, that still doesn't mean you need an eponymous category for American Dad to hold just it and the DvD. The link to the DvD article within the American Dad article is more than sufficient. Dugwiki 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful television series category, interlinking every single American Dad article may not be desirable per WP:CONTEXT and some readers will find this a good way of navigation. There are also counter-precedents so the Medium decision suggests these categories are begin judged individually on merit , see for example American Dragon: Jake Long CFD. Tim! 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that anything at WP:CONTEXT could possibly serve as justification for not linking American Dad! and American Dad! DVDs together through the articles?! That's just flat out ludicrous. And I would certainly never suggest that each category should not be judged on its own merits. Otto4711 18:03, 25 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Yet another attempt to revive Dead people by occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Dead people should not be subcategorized by occupation. You can make an argument that it is possibly ok to subcategorize articles for people who suffered "occupational deaths", but that's not what Deceased porn stars is doing (ie their deaths might or might not have anything at all to do with their occupation). Dugwiki 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not supposed to categorize as alive/dead. Doczilla 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also because all three of their deaths were by suicide, and all three are already included in Category:Porn stars who committed suicide, making the category unnecessary. Joie de Vivre 00:37, 28 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, default to keep unchanged. Sam Blacketer 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shows on Adult Swim to Category:Adult Swim shows

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - in line with how other similar categories (for example, the parent Category:Cartoon Network shows) are named. Otto4711 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. Of the sub-categories of Category:Cartoon Network shows, most take the form Shows on XXX. Shouldn't they all be nominated? --rimshots^talk 13:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sam Blacketer 14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Cat defined as "Longer than average song titles", almost random inclusion Lugnuts 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitrary and POV-ridden inclusion standard; trivial basis for categorization. Otto4711 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting list, no doubt about it, but not a valid criterion for categorization. (reminds me of Starfire Burning Upon the Ice-Veiled Throne of Ultima Thule). -Andrew c 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this kind of stuff is interesting for me, I think it would make a fine article. But it really doesn't work as a category. -- Prove It ^(talk)
Delete no definition of what the average is, nor any evidence that anyone outside of Wikipedia has ever studied what the average might be makes this original research. Beyond that, I think it qualifies as trivia and overcategorization (although, like ProveIt, I find it mildly interesting). Even if we accept the premise, would make more sense as a list since we don't usually have articles on individual songs, and a list could include album links. Xtifr _tälk 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia with no obective inclusion criteria. Per Xtifr, I have no objection to a list if someone wants to make one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, as People by people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:50, 24 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 rename Category:Magnets to Category:Types of magnets. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Magnets to Category:Types of magnets

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The ideas of "magnets" and "magnetism" are not very distinct (even our Magnet and Magnetism pages are proposed for merger), and we already have a supercat Category:Magnetism for the whole field. "Types of magnets" is a clearer name if that's what specific type of magnet/magnetism pages it contains (as Category:Magnets presently states "This category concerns itself with types of magnets.") as opposed to articles about magnets. DMacks 17:57, 24 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Keep - The consensus seems to be that Category:Jewish American jurists is a valid category. (The many Keep/UpMerge comments, among others.) That then makes it clear that this is an exception to non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference as noted under that section. In addition, since it is, then categorising by a subcategory of Category:Jurists (Category:United States Supreme Court justices - though it's a sub-sub-sub-sub category) seems to be appropriate per the several keep comments.

One thing I would like to note is that the members of the nominated category are overcategorised, in that they all belong to: Category:United States Supreme Court justices; Category:Jewish American jurists; and Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices. I suggest that they be removed at least from Category:Jewish American jurists, with the nominated category retained as a subcat. There currently seems no consensus whether they should belong to Category:United States Supreme Court justices in addition to the nominated category, due to ease of navigation. If they should belong to both, then the nominated cat should not then be a subcat of Category:United States Supreme Court justices. (Which would seem to be the preference of some opposers.) But what names belong where is more properly relegated to a talk page discussion "somewhere". - jc37 10:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless intersection. No peers. -- Y not? 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous CfD on 1 January 2007, in which the category was renamed from "Jewish Supreme Court justices", but there was non consensus to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Jewish American jurists Agreed, this looks to be an unnecessary subcategorization of Category:Jewish American jurists. Upmerge to the parent category. Dugwiki 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Java7837 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both Category:Jewish American jurists and Category:United States Supreme Court justices. Per the previous CfD, Category:Jewish American jurists does appear to be important given the obstacles to Jewish people holding judicial office, and per previous CfD discussions where it has been agreed that lawyers and jurists are among the few professions whee religion is significant. However, this category is too small an intersect and has too little potential for growth, so I have created List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices to preserve the information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BrownHairedGirl: You have made a serious mistake here. I have nominated your pre-emptive list for deletion as well, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices. Lists should not be created in place of categories and vice versa while a vote is in progress. IZAK 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - IZAK, per replies elsewhere, I did not intend to pre-empt anything. I have never seen any other objection to the creation of a list when the category was under discussion, but if the list breaches some guideline (which one?), it can be deleted, and I will remain neutral. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for being open-minded. Try some of these: Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat; Wikipedia:Embedded list; Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion; Wikipedia:Listcruft; ((listcruft)); Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. (There is still more.) Thank you, IZAK 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only one of those which is a guideline is Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, which is about something different; the rest are essays or projects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as suggested by BrownHairedGirl, although I question whether secular jurisprudence is practiced any differently by Jewish people than by non-Jewish people, which would tend to make the category Category:Jewish American jurists invalid; but that debate is for another day. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient numbers of entries to justify the subcategory, and the upmerged category stands a real chance of becoming overpopulated to a degree that makes it unhelpful. --TheEditrix2 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge All supreme court justices belong in the same category. Greg Grahame 10:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as suggested by others. A pointless level of subcategorization. --Saforrest 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- this is overcategorization; since we now have List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices this category is not needed. --Wassermann 22:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per my comments on similar category in the following day's listings. OrchWyn 10:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Category:United States Supreme Court justices only due to Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. See my views at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Agree with User:OrchWyn to merge all the other Jewish American occupational categories as well. IZAK 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK, I have replied at my talk page and at the AfD for the List. You are quite entitled to your view on the merits of lists and categories of Jewish people, and I'm sure that those will consiered carefully at AfD if you chose to explain them ... but I do object to my good faith efforts at creating a list causing me to subject to a barrage of allegations at AfD. WP:CIVIL, please.
  If creating a list on the basis of a category being discused at CfD is a bad idea, please could someone point me to some relevant guideline? You are the first person to object to the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - BrownHairedGirl: Can you cite cases of lists being created (or vice versa) during a vote to delete a category that contains the exact information? I have never experienced such a situation (in four years on Wikipedia), but Wikipedia is a big place and we can all miss things. Regarding the problems with creating cutesy mini-lists see the following: Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat; Wikipedia:Embedded list; Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion; Wikipedia:Listcruft; ((listcruft)); Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. (There is still more.) Thank you, IZAK 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - IZAK, if you were a more regular participant in CfD, you would long ago have been aware that the criteria for deleting a category are different from those for deleting an article (see some examples on my talk). It's a pity too that you ignored repeated requests to explain in a few short sentences what your problem is with the content of the list (apart from your misplaced concerns over the manner of its creation), and prefer instead simply to provide links to a few essays and wikiprojects dealing with different issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on the related AfD discussion, q.v. Newyorkbrad 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify', and may I suggest expanding the list to show the religions of all S. Ct. Justices? There has recently been some controversy over religion and jurisprudence, sparked in part by the recent S.Ct. decision on abortion in which the court split along religious lines; while my personal view is that it was an ideological rather than religious split, that and similar controversies over the life of the court make this intersection a studied and discussed topic and this information useful. That having been said, the list strikes me as more useful than the category and as having the potential to expand beyond Jewish judges to all judges. Let me say that I would not support categorizing or listifying this intersection beyond the S. Ct., but where we're dealing with leading historical and political figures it strikes me as relevant.A Musing 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a category of very important and distinguished people, significant in its own right.--Runcorn 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is dubious. "Pointless intersection." Why? "No peers" We shouldn't delete something just because nobody has bothered to create a similar one. Would we delete "List of British poets" just because nobody had created a list of Portuguese or Romanian ones?--Brownlee 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubious, eh? Hmmm... -- Y not? 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion or sexual preference. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:55, 2 May 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a recreation? Regardless, it's too subjective and too open to interpretation. At some point in their fictional histories, most characters are paired in a way which could qualify their inclusion. Rather, we should try to only subcategorize by simple details such as publisher. The more inclusive and annotated List of sidekicks already exists. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what say you about the rest of Category:Fictional sidekicks? Otto4711 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. If I ever were to renominate, I'd nominate from there down, but alas, I will opt to withdraw this nomination, please.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict, but for the record:) Keep - It fits well into the category mentioned by Otto4711 and is probably the most notable subcat. It is concept with an extensive history(1940s to the present) in mainstream American comics and their imitators, their characters are well defined - and parodied:). I can supply references if this needs to be established, probably more than a few theses. Holy cats, Batman!? Fred 20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming Category:Fictional sidekicks is kept Assuming Category:Fictional sidekicks is kept in place, this is an appropriate subcategory along side Category:Film sidekicks and Category:Literature sidekicks and Category:Video game sidekicks. Now you might be able to argue that the parent of all of those, Category:Fictional sidekicks, is flawed and should be reviewed as being too subjective. But unless and until that parent category is deleted, this is an acceptable subcategory. Dugwiki 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can all stop voting, I already opted to widthraw this nomination.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:15, 25 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete and listify cast members --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absent the articles for cast and crew members, which is improper categorization, the category contained a small number of articles on the show and the film along with collecting projects whose connection to Jackass may be as slight as sharing a common cast member. The various people and projects are all extensively interlinked through each other and a comprehensive navtemplate. This category is unnecessary for navigational purposes and should be deleted. Otto4711 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at the actors articles, removing this category would make their categorization entries rather genetic. I feel that this is probably the most notable aspect of these individuals' careers, and believe the categorization is helpful. There may be a case to remove shows and projects whose only connection is a shared cast member, but that doesn't meant the whole category should be deleted. I'd suggest pruning this category, or discussing the categories purpose would be better than outright deleting it, because Jackass is probably one of the most defining and notable aspect to some of these actor's careers.-Andrew c 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand your point, but consensus is strongly against categorizing individuals on the basis of the shows in which they appear and against categorizing shows on the basis of who appears in them. Please see this CFD as the first of many, many CFDs establishing this consensus. Regardless of whether the category itself stays or goes, the cast members have to be removed from the category. The question is whether the remaining material warrants categorization or whether the interlinking of the various articles along with the template make the category unneeded. Otto4711 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - It seems like that CfD would suggest we rename this category to Category:Jackass cast members and remove all non-cast members. My concerns is that if this category gets deleted, then we will need some sort of category to cover the most notable aspects of these gentlemen's careers. Maybe an occupation category like Category:Professional stunt people.-Andrew c 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you review the CFD to which I linked you'll see that renaming to a "...cast members" construction is not an option. Category:Stunt performers already exists. Otto4711 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/listify - Categorization of people by show has been problematic in the past because of category clutter problems. Otto4711 has provided the link to the debate which set the precendent for these types of categories. Dr. Submillimeter 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful television series category, interlinking every single Jackass article may not be desirable per WP:CONTEXT and some readers will find this a good way of navigation. Tim! 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that WP:CONTEXT, which calls for linking articles which are relevant to each other, would frown upon linking articles on, say Bam Margera, Viva La Bam and Bam's Unholy Union together through the text. I truly am unable to understand why, if you believe the articles are not relevant enough to ach other to be linked together, they are relevant enough to be categorized. Otto4711 18:43, 25 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Category:Films directed by Jackie Chan is a partial replacement where appropriate. Sam Blacketer 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as recreation of Category:Films_by_actor, already a list at Jackie Chan filmography. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per strong precedent against films by actor categorization. Otto4711 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, should not be categorizing films-by-actor. Stick to filmography within main article or list article supplement. Dugwiki 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RENAME Category:Films directed by Jackie Chan and weed out the films he didn't direct, per Category:Films by director such as Category:Films directed by Akira Kurosawa.-Andrew c 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Films-by-director is ok (since there's only usually one director per film). It's the films-by-actor that aren't. Dugwiki 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films directed by Jackie Chan per Andrew c. I was wondering about his being a director. Vegaswikian 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as director cat (and weed out inappropriate members) per Andrew c's very sensible suggestion. Xtifr _tälk 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per above, we may also need Films produced by Jackie Chan. Alternatively, as Jackie Chan appears as the character Jackie Chan, we could just keep this category as a films by series category. Tim! 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already populated Category:Films directed by Jackie Chan, if anyone knows of more please add them. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Director. Andrzejbanas 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Sam Blacketer 08:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - In response to comments on various CFMs and having had some concerns about this categorization scheme for a while, this is a "test the waters" nomination delaing with one state with a small number of sub-cats. Categorizing people on the basis of having been "born in, residents of or otherwise closely associated with" particular cities is overcategorization. It is rare that affiliation with a city is a defining characteristic for the vast majority of people. In those cases where it is, it's usually because the person is associated with the city in an official capacity such as being the mayor or a notable police officer, and Category:Mayors by city and similar for other city-level officials better serve to capture such people. Categorizing on the city level brings together people who have little or nothing in common beyond geographic coincidence. People move, making the categorization even less meaningful and meaning that people can end up categorized as being from multiple cities, leading to category clutter. For example, if I had a Wikipedia article I could have as many as eight city categories because that's how many cities I have either been born in, lived in or been associated with to various degrees of closeness. Categorizing at the state level, either as "People from Maryland" or in one of the many occupation-specific Maryland categories, is more than sufficient for purposes of geographic origin. While I might otherwise suggest merging all of these to Category:People from Maryland, in somewhat randomly choosing this state I find that a number of the categories encompass not only Maryland but surrounding counties in other states, making a merger inappropriate because of the resultant possible miscategorization, and additionally each of the articles I looked at in the course of tagging the categories already has at least one Maryland-specific category already. Should this nomination pass and other states be nominated, merger may be a better option in other cases. Otto4711 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per conventions of Category:People by city in the United States. I agree that sometimes this really goes too far ... I'm currently living in my 11th city. On the other hand, there are many people who live in one place for nearly all their lives. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is addressing the entire People by city in the United States categorization system. The convention itself is being questioned. Otto4711 14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and even agree with some of your arguments. However, Category:People by city is an enormous world-wide hierarchy that I personally find extremely useful. Yes, it has some problems, but I think Wikipedia is better for having it there. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, but if they must be removed then upmerge to the appropriate state categories. These "People from xxx" categories are, in many cases, the renamed versions of the former "Natives of xx" categories, which were renamed because there isn't a clear definition of "native" and the concept of a "strong association" was useful.
I think that you have a useful point about category clutter, but that could be resolved simply by tightening the category definition a little to remove mere residency as a criterion for inclusion. The test should be whether someone lived in a city for a significant proportion of their lives, or achieved notability through their association with the city, or achieved notable things in the city. Sure, we already have categories for mayors, but every city has notable businesspeople, notable artists etc, and removing these categories removes the link in the category system.
As but one example: Philip Glass is a notable son of Baltimore, and is not in any other category relating to that city. I would be surprised if he didn't think that growing in Baltimore had been an important part of his development.
The fact that some cities straddle state boundaries is, in fact, a good reason to keep the categories rather than delete them -- if we delete Category:People from Cumberland, Maryland, then there will some confusion as to whether the biogs should be categorised under Category:People from Maryland or Category:People from West Virginia, with the result that they may end up in neither or both.
By-state categorisation might not be too unwieldy for somewhere like Delaware, but for New York or California, it would lead to huge and un-navigable categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any confusion between state categories should be resolved by finding a reliable source. If no such source can be found then the article should not be categorized in either. This is the way that any article should be treated. Under the existing scheme, someone who lives in the "environs" of Cumberland but not in Cumberland is definitely miscategorized. The actual miscategorization strikes me as more problematic than the possible miscategorization that might or might not result. "People from (state) categories should be diffused regularly into more specific subcats (for example, Philip Glass is in Category:Maryland musicians and should therefore not be in the parent Category:People from Maryland) but that's a maintenance issue, not a categorization issue. Your suggested tightening of the definition raises POV/OR issues as to what objectively constitutes, for example, a "significant" portion of their lives? If someone is born in Santa Fe, lives 30 years in Annapolis but does notable things in Cleveland, Akron and Dayton, should he be categorized as being "from" Sante Fe, Annapolis, Cleveland, Akron or Dayton? Otto4711 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without getting too deep into this one, I'll just comment that there are a couple of rational reasons to subcategorize people by city. First, a person's locality can create subtle cultural differences in their chosen career. Politicians are an obvious example, but another is artists since an artist's local culture influences their styles (eg New Orleans, Louisiana jazz musicians or the Seattle, Washington garage band scene). Another is that readers will likely be interested in reading about notable figures in their own locale. Someone from New York City is likely to be interested in reading about important people in the New York City area, even if living in the city doesn't necessarily directly impact their biography. There is a sense of connectedness for people from your "hometown", even when you actually have little in common with them other than the coincidence of sharing a birthplace. Finally dividing biographies by city or county can allow readers the opportunity to investigate culture in specific areas as a whole by offering articles as cases for further examination.

So while I'm not going to get into where the lines should be drawn on limiting when or how to categorize by city, I will say that as a general concept it does have its uses. I wouldn't discard by-city categorization across the board. Dugwiki 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We already have Category:Musicians of New Orleans for example and a musician from that city should be in the specific category and not the general "People..." one. There are plenty of categories for cultural aspects of cities, including museums and other visitor attractions, extensive categorization for local sports and so on. People by city doesn't really tell a lot about the culture of the city. Otto4711 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Otto, if you intend that Category:Musicians of New Orleans etc should stay, then without Category:People from New Orleans, the parenting of those occupation by city categories becomes difficult: we will end up with Category:New Orleans containing a lot of occupation by city categories. If you don't want individuals in these categories, wouldn't it be better to retain the categories but label them explicitly as container categories, as I have done for Category:Women by nationality and occupation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Otto above, note that the "occupation by city" structure serves as a parent category to the subcategories you mentioned such as Category:Musicians of New Orleans. I have no problem, though, with the suggestion that the individual biographies in Category:People from New Orleans should all be moved into appropriate subcategories by occupation. A universal category of everyone from New Orleans isn't per se more useful than a phone directory, but a directory of biographies of people in New Orleans subdivided by occupation is useful. So keep Category:People from New Orleans in place, but move all its individual articles down into appropriate subcategories. Dugwiki 17:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every occupation will have enough members to justify a separate subcategory in a given city, and in such a case, I see nothing wrong will classifying someone under both People by city and Occupation by state. (Apropos of nothing, I have to say that I'm flattered to see people citing the first category I ever created, Category:Musicians of New Orleans, as a positive example.) :) Xtifr _tälk 12:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upmerge all from CITY, STATE cats to from STATE. Neier 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One reason is that when someone comes across Category:People from Maryland, the only articles there are for the people who aren't from one of the largest cities, and that is a misrepresentation. The only way around that is to split every state into the hundreds of subcats which would be required to equally partition out people to all the cities/towns/boroughs in each state. That doesn't help the present situation that makes it hard to find people the farther down in a category they are placed.
  - Another reason is that there is an incongruency at the "People from Maryland" category. If the "People from" categories need to be split by city, then, by whatever logic is used to arrive at that decision, Category:Maryland musicians, and Category:Maryland actors should be split by city as well. "But, there aren't enough actors to justify a split by city" is exactly the same claim I would make "But, there aren't enough people to justify a split by city". The severely overpopulated Category:People from Dorchester County, Maryland provides a good example of this, I think.
  - Finally, what happens when towns are dissolved or merged to larger towns? I'm not familiar with Maryland, but, Indianapolis is mentioned in another debate further down this page. Are people born in 1821, but born outside the original one square mile of Indianapolis considered "from Indianapolis"? In general, states (provinces, prefectures, etc) are much more stable and do not change with just the swipe of a pen by a government bureaucrat. Cities, on the other hand, do change. For a non-American case that highlights this problem, you may want to read Gappei about mergers in Japan. In 140 years, 15,859 towns have been consolidated to 1800+. Neier 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first point there is very dubious. Anyone with any experience of Wikipedia categories knows that the most interesting and important articles are frequently found in subcategories. I always check for interesting subcategories before I even start looking through a category's other contents. The second point is simply false; demonstrated by the fact that we have Category:American guitarists but not Category:Maryland guitarists. "Whatever logic" was used to subdivide Category:American musicians by instrument was not considered necessary to apply to Category:Maryland musicians. As for the third point, I think large cities are fairly unlikely to merge or dissolve, and I don't think small towns should have these sorts of categories. Of course it does happen with larger entities too. There have been some adjustments of counties in England recently, and we simply renamed or merged the categories to follow suit, so it's not a problem; we know how to cope. Xtifr _tälk 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why don't you think that small towns should have these sorts of categories? Is there a difference in being from a city of 1,000,000 or from a town of 10,000? If this !vote results in a keep, then, there is no reason not to make a subcat for every municipality in every state, per precedent and the points being discussed here. None of the points here are wrt the relative size of the cities. Neier 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this is part of a well-established, widely accepted, and very sensible categorization scheme. In many cases, it clearly constitutes a defining characteristic, and even when it doesn't, it's useful to keep parent categories from getting too large. While I agree that there may be some issues and individual cases of category clutter, in general, I think these are categories that J. Random Reader would expect to find and would be highly surprised if they didn't exist. These are categories that should exist for any large collection of biographical articles. Xtifr _tälk 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for a number of reasons given above: it's objective, it's defining, it's useful, and I strongly disagree with the proposition in the nomination: "It is rare that affiliation with a city is a defining characteristic for the vast majority of people. In those cases where it is, it's usually because the person is associated with the city in an official capacity such as being the mayor or a notable police officer, and Category:Mayors by city and similar for other city-level officials better serve to capture such people." A few examples from many occupations demonstrate that it is not "rare": Herb Caen (San Francisco journalist), Tom Landry (Dallas football coach), Jamie Farr (Toledo actor), Al Sharpton, (New York activist), etc..... Carlossuarez46 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep if people by state is a valid approach, then so is this! . This is useful, as so much of WP editing is done of the basis of local interest. It does bring eds. together, as well as helps in browsing. DGG 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete ridiculous Sleep On It 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Sam Blacketer 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feels very redundant. Country of origin or theme should be used. It would be futile to recategorized all anime under this for being "Japanese culture". "Category:Tango films" is perfectly fine as a sub category of Category:Argentine films. It is redundant to recategorized it as a subcat of Category:Films by culture. All films are "culture" related. -- Cat ^chi? 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Category:Films by culture[reply]

Speedy close as disruptive, bad faith WP:POINT nomination, otherwise strong keep.

"Strong Keep" because there are several useful categories of films by culture (such as Category:Jewish films which don't fit national boundaries, and this category is a useful grouping of them.

Speedy close" because this nomination is transparently designed to justify the removal Kurdish-related categories. The nominator concerned appears to have a big problem with categories relating to Kurdistan, and started several CfDs yesterday for Kurdish categories: History of Kurdistan, Kurdish inhabited regions and Kurdish films.

Cool Cat also nominated several geographical categories which are not based on national or administrative divisions, seeking to establish a principle that only current national or sub-national boundaries may be used to categorise cities and settlements: see, for example, CFD for Cities on the Great Lakes.
This nomination follows an exchange on the CFD for Kurdish films, where Cool Cat makes the goal explicit: extract below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat, "Kurdish-language films" is a linguistic category, just like other subcats of Category:Films by language. The point of this category is the same as that of the subcats of Films by country: to provide a geographic/cultural category. Yes, Kurdistan is not a nation-state ... but that's not a reason to create a situation where there is no "Kurdish" category for a Kurdish film in English. Unless, of course, someone has a deeply ingrained anti-Kurdish POV ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit conflict more than covered me. I'd have written "Don't we? Check out Category:Films by culture, Category:Films by location..." NikoSilver 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated "films by culture" for deletion too. Films by location would not apply since "Kurdish" is not a location. -- Cat ^chi? 13:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am stopping here, because I am about to indulge in adhering to m:How to win an argument. NikoSilver 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not copy other discussions. You may link to them. Please take personal reasons to WP:ANB/I if you feel someone is being disruptive. -- Cat ^chi? 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove other people's contributions from talk pages. That brief extract is necessary on this occasion to illustrate that is a WP:POINT nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasting part of a different thread is unethical. -- Cat ^chi? 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about unethical, but it is kind of ugly. I kind of agree that a link would have been enough. In fact links could have been better as you could have linked to other things too.--T. Anthony 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and keep, per above. A Musing 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 rename to Category:Private universities and colleges in Malaysia --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Malaysian private universities to Category:Private universities and Malaysia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename (conventional word order). Perebourne 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but perhaps you mean Category:Private universities '''in''' Malaysia? Otto4711 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Private universities in Malaysia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename to Category:Private universities in Malaysia. -- Cat ^chi? 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Private universities and colleges in Malaysia. If you look at the category it has several colleges listed and the parent is Category:Universities and colleges in Malaysia. Vegaswikian 23:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Private universities and colleges in Malaysia. Haddiscoe 11:16, 25 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic, and there's a very limited number (currently two) of these franchises for this category to be useful. Combination 12:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think we recently deleted a similar category for individual video games as well. Otto4711 12:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete convoluted category idea. --SubSeven 03:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 10:59, 27 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Sam Blacketer 14:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Articles in this section are put here based on some criticism of the scientific foundation of the contents in question. Those criticisms should be made explicit in the articles to enhance their quality instead of using a category which clearly discredits the whole article.. Kjell.kuehne 12:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "criticism of the scientific foundation" can be categorized accordingly. -- Cat ^chi? 13:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but restrict to articles related to the important concept of pseudoscience, rather that to subjects which are alleged to be pseudo-scientific. (This will involve removing most the current articles and sub-cats). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. An established and useful category. Jefffire 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this established terminology. Doczilla 17:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category services a purpose, and I've been involved in the past in a talk page discussion on whether an article should be included in the cat or not. I feel a case by case discussion on inclusion is better than deleting the whole category. Deleting the whole cat may be a round about way of avoiding previous consensuses to include articles.-Andrew c 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You're right, the article must make a strong case for including the subject in the category or the article should be removed. But this is true of every category anyways ... WilyD 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work needed to categories included and categories it is in. As I have a degree in pseudoscience, this should be the last word. ;-) Fred 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or strictly limit as per BrownHairedGirl's suggestion above. This category's implied blanket derogation of a subject is a violation of the NPOV policy, especially as currently applied. Hgilbert 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. An established and useful category. --Java7837 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many of the same reasons above. SESmith 04:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I not only found this category useful and for more information people can see the main article. But why don't we put sth in this category when it is under criticism academicaly by reliable sources?--Soroush83 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WilyD. --Bduke 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the categorization of people by learning disability. My argument against this category is that people are not notable for being dyslexic but are instead notable for either accomplishing other things or acting as advocates for dyslexics. This may also be a fairly common learning disability, so it is unclear as to whether it is a defining trait. Also note that similar categories for people with diseases (Category:People with diabetes) and for people with psychological conditions (Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression) have recently been deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, next would be folicaly challenged (bald) people... -- Cat ^chi? 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I would comment that People by disease subcategories are acceptable specifically for biographies where the disease is prominently mentioned and referenced. It seems unlikely, though, that any such articles exist for people with dyslexia. If someone can provide an example of a biography that specifically highlight's the person's dyslexia, I'll reconsider my delete recommendation. Barring that, delete the category. Dugwiki 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as non-defining. Doczilla
Delete Non-defining. People don't have articles because they have dyslexia. Haddiscoe 11:17, 25 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 upmerge to Category:Lists of fictional characters and Category:Fictional LGBT characters --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) The category content is limited to four articles with names like "list of LGBT characters". There's no real reason why this shouldn't be in the parent cat, so I suggest upmerge. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the category is a reasonable subcat of Category:Lists of fictional characters and Category:LGBT people which is where it's currently situated. Not seeing any reason to upmerge to either category. Otto4711 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason why those four particular lists couldn't be in both parent cats you mention? This is small and seems unlikely to grow much. >Radiant< 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. No better than LGBT murderers. It is even fictional and not "real". -- Cat ^chi? 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge! :) Makes way more sense to have the lists in the top left of the parent category.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Lists of fictional characters and Category:Fictional LGBT characters Seems like an unnecessary subdivision from those parent categories. Upmerge as suggested above. Dugwiki 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 25 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 merge Category:Lists of fictional characters by series to Category:Lists of fictional characters by work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the more heavily used Category:Lists of fictional characters by series. Is it really important for subcatting whether a list of characters apply to a single book or a series of books? Suggest merge. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the simple reason that these are not series, so categorizing them as "...by series" is inaccurate. Otto4711 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but we could perhaps think of a better name? >Radiant< 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like what for example? We categorize creative works as "works" (c.f. Category:Works by author) so I'm not clear as to why using "works" for this category is a problem. Otto4711 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is this an "article using categories"? Otto4711 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or reverse merge; a series is a work, but most works aren't series, so if the series cat is kept, it should be made a subcat of this one. I think there's a weak case for keeping the series cat, since appearing in the multiple works of a series can enhance the case for a character's notability, but I think there's no argument for deleting this cat. Xtifr _tälk 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge is also fine with me. The point is that the two cats are pretty much redundant and the other one is used far more often. >Radiant< 07:34, 25 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 upmerge to Category:Lists of fictional characters --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very narrow, unless you count "dead" as a medical condition (heck, even "alcoholism" is somewhat doubtful in the context of fictional characters). Suggest upmerge. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two of the three articles are likely to be deleted and the third is already appropriately categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - These are not really lists about people with medical conditions, nor are they really similar enough to be categorized together. Dr. Submillimeter 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a misapplied category. That being said, I could possibly see a use for dividing out fictional characters with categorized medical conditions from actual people with categorized conditions. For example, it's useful to have Category:Fictional blind characters be a distinct subcategory of Category:Blind people. Dugwiki 15:55, 24 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 keep --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think categorizing people by appearance is all that useful. While albinism is a medical condition in real life, in fiction it is effectively little different from "characters with red hair". It's also a semi-common trait to make "mystical" characters more special (like green eyes and so forth). >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The categorization of fictional characters by appearance generally brings together unrelated characters. Here, for example, Caliban (comics) has little in common with Malfoy. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have two problems with deleting this category. First, my main problem is that we have Category:Albinos which, if this subcategory were deleted, would result in the fictional albinos being in the same category as actual albinos. (Normally we split characters from actual people in categories, such as Category:Fictional blind characters being a subcategory of Category:Blind people.) Second, it might be useful and interesting to compare how artists use and perceive albinos in their works. True, not all of these characters are similar, but there could well be similar trends in how these characters are portrayed in their associated works. Even Radiant above acknowledges that albinoism is used in works to make certain characters appear more "mystical". Dugwiki 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the above point about the need to distinguish the fictional from the real. -- HowardDean 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki's sensible observations. --TheEditrix2 00:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could think of a few straight straight away; Elric novels reiterated his condition throughout. Long historical trend in lit. etc. - the category should remain. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 19:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree mainly with Dugwiki. Katsuhagi 02:55, 29 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Listify and Delete - The general consensus seems to be that what constitutes an "Amazon" needs defining (and therefore, citing). Based on that consensus, per WP:CAT and specifically WP:CLS, the category should be a list, which can then be cited/referenced, explaining the use of the term "Amazon" in each case. - jc37 11:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange categorization because most of these "Amazons" really aren't. The Amazons were a race of female warriors in Greek mythology. It so happens that many fictional stories picked up the archetype of "female warrior" and put a tribe of them somewhere. As a result this category contains a few "wannabe" Amazons (per the article), a bunch of superheroes, a few groups from China which also had warrior women, and so forth. These characters aren't meaningfully related, and really aren't Amazons. Category:Fictional women in war covers it better. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category does appear to interpret the term "amazon" a little loosely. However, I am not even convinced that Category:Fictional women in war is appropriate for some of these people, such as the superheroes and anime characters. For example, Shampoo (Ranma ½) is better categorized under Category:Fictional martial artists. The other categories for these articles are probably better. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would vote to keep but restrict its application strictly to characters that are literally Amazons (e.g., Hyppolyta, Wonder Woman), but there's that huge a number of individual Amazons with their own articles. Doczilla 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to propensity for category to be misused. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restrict to actual "Amazons." There may not be all that many of them currently but there aren't that many, oh say fictional squid either but those that are, are categorized. Otto4711 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does talk extensively about the Greek myths (pl.), it doesn't say much at the "later literature" wannabe section. But the main article is linked from there: Amazons in popular culture. It is quite extensive, it will probably be helpful in cleaning up the category to remove the not real ones. Shall I do that now, or should I wait until the discussion is over? Fred 22:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my dictionaries disagrees with the claim that "Amazon" only refers to Greek Mythology. Even if we ignore rivers and companies, we still have "2. a strong masculine woman" or (in an older dictionary) " 1. A tall, strong, masculine woman; a virago". I have no strong feelings about whether the category should be kept (though I don't think that "fictional women in war" is a reasonable replacement), but if it is kept, I strongly oppose any criteria that would exclude Wonder Woman, who is, in my opinion, an archetype of sorts for this category. (Not, obviously, the archetype, but still an archetype.) Xtifr _tälk 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it's about "tall, strong, masculine" women, that'd be a subjective inclusion criterion which is also not good. >Radiant< 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if we limit it to those who have been described by a citable reliable source as being "Amazons". (Note: this is absolutely not a suggestion, merely an observation. I'm merely trying to broaden the dialog here. Aside from Wonder Woman, who—as a descendant of Hippolyte—could be argued to meet even a very narrow definition, I have no horse in this race.) Xtifr _tälk 12:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith :-) The nominator makes a good point with using adjectives but my Oxford gives: "Amazon (a-) n. one of fabulous race of female warriors; masculine women. Amazonian a." Wonder Woman and the amazons of 19th and 20th century fiction rely heavily on the use of archetype. They are described as such, in analysis and within the texts. It is a useful subcat, overuse and inappropriate members are issues for the article's, and Amazons in popular culture's talk pages. The latter could use some referencing, BTW. Fred 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restruct to "actual" Amazons. -Sean Curtin 08:55, 28 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Not being able to read well is hardly a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization by learning disability is going to be problematic, especially if the characters are not formally diagnosed with dyslexia. This could lead into original research problems where editors attempt to identify dyslexic characters. The characters probably have little else in common aside from dyslexia. (Note that Category:People with dyslexia currently exists and probably should be nominated for deletion given the trend with similar categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Category:People with dyslexia is nominated for deletion above. I would suggest that this cfd should be linked to that one. If Cat:Dyslexics is deleted, then delete this also. If Dyslexics is kept (which appears doubtful), then keep this as a subcategory in order to split actual dyslexic people from dyslexic characters. Dugwiki 16:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as non-defining. Doczilla 17:05, 24 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sam Blacketer 09:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per guideline and precedent, membership in a student frat is not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 10:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most people are not notable for being fraternity/sorority members but are instead notable for their accomplishments beyond college. The previous discussions led to consensus on that viewpoint. This category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lots of previous discussions on fraternity membership categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC. -- Cat ^chi? 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally speaking use list articles for organization membership for most organizations. Dugwiki 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive precedent; haven't we killed all these yet? Are any of these speediable recreations? Xtifr _tälk 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are notable encyclopedic facts. If these are deleted, membership catagories of EVERY organization (not just frats and sorors) should go, too. Plus, fraternities and sororites aren't limited only to college. On a side note, why these particular organizations and not others? D4S 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These should only be deleted if lists are made first. This information is of encyclopedic interest. — Jonathan Bowen 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sam Blacketer 09:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like putting up religion/occupation categories on CfD, but this seems overly specific. I would personally support a Category:Christian sportspeople since there are organizations like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but the fact is I'm alone on that. Plus even I think this is too specific as it only seems important in the case of Paul Wylie. Lastly I have concerns it was made as a protest of the Jewish or LGBT figure skaters CfDs.--T. Anthony 09:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both per nom as random intersection, unless someone can show that there is a particularly Catholic or Christian way to do figure skating, or that the sport has a history of excluding Catholics or Christians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my other comments on the other figure skaters categories below. Dr. Submillimeter 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of July 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAUC and WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference -- Cat ^chi? 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very similar to the recently deleted and blocked Category:Jewish figure skaters. It seems quite unlikely there is an actual connection between religion and figure skating, aside from an occasional possible religion-specific competition (eg a competition that is specifically organized by a religious group to promote a sense of community among religious athletes). Dugwiki 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how "Christian" or "Catholic" figure skating differs from the plain, ordinary variety practiced by people of other religions, or no religion at all. Dr.frog 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant intersection. Haddiscoe 11:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invalid intersection. Carlossuarez46 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: invalid intersection, however I agree with creation of Christian sportspeople to fall under "category:christians by occupation". --linca^linca 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because they are not representing their religions and basically have nothing to do with it. IZAK 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee. Sam Blacketer 09:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Tennessee. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge' into Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee per nom as obvious duplicate; oppose upmeger as proposed by Otto (just clarifying my vote). Otto, if you want the state tobe te lowest level of geographical categorisation for American people, please do a group nomination for the geographical subcats of Category:People from Tennessee and/or any other states ... but don't single out one of several geographical subcats of Category:People from Tennessee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger because Nashville is a large enough city to merit a "People from" category. Now Category:People from Morristown, Tennessee, Category:People from Middlesboro, Kentucky, Category:People from Weirton, West Virginia and a few others seem kind of pointless.--T. Anthony 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee per nom Merge per nom to meet convention. I'm not convinced the by-city subcategorization should be deleted however (see my comments on the other recent by-city cfd umbrella nomination). Dugwiki 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per nom into Category:People from Nashville, Tennessee. People by city can be useful. I am the ad hoc director of WP:WPChi and we are setting a bot to tag all Chicago articles. People by city is going to be an important category for us. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Tennessee per my comments in the Maryland discussion above. Neier 10:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, strongly disagree that "per city" is overcategorization, especially not in this case. Xtifr _tälk 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. no other city named 'Nashville' Nashville (disambiguation) has a pop. of more than 4000 Mayumashu 11:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the city article is at Nashville, Tennessee, so its associated cats should match. (And this is not the right forum for discussing a rename of the article.) Xtifr _tälk 13:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested i think the discussion of going directly to state should be deferred until we have settled the principle, via the Maryland proposal which was specifically designed as an example . DGG 07:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge into Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana. Sam Blacketer 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Indiana. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it isb to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Indiana. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger because Indianapolis is a large enough city to merit a "People from" category. Now Category:People from Anna, Illinois, Category:People from Humboldt, Kansas, Category:People from Jaffrey, New Hampshire, Category:People from Blossom, Texas, Category:People from Quanah, Texas, and a few others seem kind of pointless.--T. Anthony 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana Merge per nom to match the name of the main article. Do not delete (see my comments for the other recent by-city subcategories nominated for deletion recently). Dugwiki 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Indiana per my comments in the Maryland discussion above. Neier 10:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, strongly disagree that "per city" is overcategorization, especially not for a city this size. Xtifr _tälk 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - keep Category:People from Indianapolis - no other places named 'Indianapolis' are of any size - see Indianapolis (disambiguation). Mayumashu 11:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be right. I just voted based on what I thought was some standardization rule.--T. Anthony 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category should match the city article, which is Indianapolis, Indiana. Xtifr _tälk 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge into Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas. Sam Blacketer 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Texas. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories, including coincidentally this one). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it is to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Texas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger because Fort Worth, Texas is a large enough city to merit a "People from" category. Now Category:People from Blossom, Texas, Category:People from Quanah, Texas, Category:People from Vernon, Texas and a few others seem kind of pointless.--T. Anthony 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas per nom, do not delete Merge to match name of associated main article. Do not delete (see my comments on similar by-city cfds today.) Dugwiki 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Texas per my comments in the Maryland discussion above. Neier 10:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, strongly disagree that "per city" is overcategorization. I could see an argument for making a combined Dallas/Forth Worth category (matching Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex), but Forth Worth itself is among the 20 largest cities in the US (at least according to Wikipedia). Xtifr _tälk 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge. No other Fort Worth seems to exist. Mayumashu 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge as above i think the discussion of going directly to state should be deferred until we have settled the principle, via the Maryland proposal which was specifically designed as an example . DGG 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category should match the main article, which is at Fort Worth, Texas. Whether that should be changed is beyond the scope of the CfD. For now, we should stick with nominator's proposal for maximum internal consistency. Xtifr _tälk 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Terribly inconsequential way to define an actor. --SubSeven 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a variety of performer by performance categorization, plus it's a grammatical mess. Otto4711 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stupid category. And I'll bet you a nickel I know what multiply banned user's sockpuppet created the category.[1][2] Doczilla 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely meaningless category. --Blue Tie 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "Actor's you are recasts for characters in movie's." and a population of one is ~~the~~ not worth fussing over. Please remove Ed Norton, I changed the text already. Happy editing Fred 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ^amendment 07:20, 26 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge into Category:People from Chicago Heights, Illinois. Sam Blacketer 09:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Chicago Heights, Illinois, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Illinois. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Chicago Heights, Illinois per nom as obvious duplicate. Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it is to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Illinois. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Chicago Heights, Illinois per nom Merge per nom to match name of main article. Do not delete (see my comments on similar by-city cfds today) Dugwiki 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Keep per nom, despite sparse population of articles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Illinois per my comments in the Maryland discussion above. Neier 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Merge with Category:People from Cook County, Illinois (preferred) or rename per nom. I'm generally in favor of "per city" categories, but only for major cities. I'm sure we don't need a cat for Maza, North Dakota (pop 5, but still technically a city). This one, at pop 30k, is hardly major, so I think a merge to county is the best bet, but a simple rename is definitely better than merge to state. Xtifr _tälk 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge into Category:People from St. Louis, Missouri. Sam Blacketer 09:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from St. Louis, Missouri, convention of Category:People by city in the United States, or the reverse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:People from Missouri. Categorizing people by city is overcategorization. The vast majority of the people so categorized have nothing in common with each other beyond the geographic coincidence of happening to have been born or lived in the same city and only in very rare instances (if one is a mayor, for example) is the city in which one was born or lived any sort of a defining characteristic. People move, meaning that they could be categorized by any number of cities (if I had a Wikipedia article I could have eight different city categories). Categorization at the American state level is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is being from St. Louis a "geographic coincidence" but being from Missouri a relevant characteristic? People from St. Louis have a lot more in common with each other than they do with people from say Joplin, MO or Kansas City. --dm ^(talk) 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for now to the standard. If someone wants to bring up the larger issue of Category:People by city in the United States, then do that as it's own nomination. Vegaswikian 05:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from St. Louis, Missouri per nom as obvious duplicate. Per Vegaswikian, Oppose upmerger (as suggested by Otto), because categorisation by city is a current convention, and if it is to be changed then it should be done a group nomination rather than simply singling out one of many geographical subcats of Category:People from Missouri. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:People from St. Louis, Missouri Merge per nom to match main article. Do not delete (disagree with Otto that by-city categorization is in general considered overcategorization). Dugwiki 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Missouri per my comments in the Maryland discussion above. Neier 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, strongly disagree that "per city" is overcategorization, especially not for a city this size. Xtifr _tälk 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to Category:People from St. Louis. No other St. Louis is of any comparable size - see Saint Louis. Mayumashu 12:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite correct. Saint-Louis, Senegal is fairly large and significant to its nation. Granted that's Africa so it's a big snore here, but I still don't think this is good idea because of that.--T. Anthony 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to Category:People from St. Louis. "St. Louis" alone only means the one in Missouri. No need to specify the state. --dm ^(talk) 21:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the category name should match the main article, which in this case is St. Louis, Missouri. Xtifr _tälk 12:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sam Blacketer 09:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization per WP:OC. Also no criteria. What is a "Mormon-related" controversy? How are people "related" to a "related" controversy? Are they second cousins? Vague, undefined, cufty, and overcategorized. Blue Tie 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague "related to" which could include almost anyone. Delete per all the other deletions of vague, broad, useless "controversy" articles. Doczilla 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue -- Cat ^chi? 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This just seems to be a vaguely-named category. It could encompass lots of people who may only be indirectly involved with these "controversies". Dr. Submillimeter 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keep in mind that the alternative is and will be categorizing these people as "Mormonism-related controversy", which just survived a CfD. "Mormonism-related controversies" is almost as vague, but more counter-intuitive applied to individuals. Cool Hand Luke 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Hmain's suggestion to "People directly involved in Mormonism-related controversies". Cool Hand Luke 04:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the same list of people that was listed for deletion under the title: "People related to anti-Mormonism" but suddenly moved to this list. Anon166 01:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename to 'People directly involved in Mormonism-related controversies' or 'Critics of Mormonism' or move all articles to Mormonism category. Provide positive alternatives, not just delete, delete, delete. Hmains 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or, alternatively, allow persons to be added to the "Mormonism-related controversies" category. As mentioned by Cool Hand Luke, right now there's a debate going on there at that Category whether or not to include persons in it. This category and its nomination for deletion can only be understood in that context. It likely can't be had both ways—either the people can be included there or else they need a (better titled) category of their own. -SESmith 08:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category appears to cover every person, Mormon or otherwise, who has ever made a "controversial" comment about Mormonism -- including, apparently, all editors who comment on this very CFD. It's nonsense. Kill it. Or start a new category called People with opinions. --TheEditrix2 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Trödel 01:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague; not a defining characteristic. BRMo 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a category now exists for Mormonism-related criticism, since most of the above list was transferred to the Mormonism-related controversies and didn't belong there. Anon166 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that category (and really all "related" categories) should be deleted. Something "related" is vague and I have noticed tons of other "related" categories deleted. --Blue Tie 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vague subject, hence related. Anon166 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge to Category:American figure skaters --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American figure skaters
Category:Asian American figure skaters
Category:Latino American figure skaters

Merge into Category:American figure skaters, Nationality / Ethnicity / Sport triple intersections. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm uncertain. For a variety of reasons African-American/Black athletes in winter sports are comparatively rare and tend to get attention. A part of me thinks that's not a good thing and may even be demeaning in some way. Still it is true to a large extent. On the other hand Category:Black Winter Olympics medalists maybe deals with that enough. I could go either way at this point so will hold off from voting until later.--T. Anthony 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:American figure skaters - These categories are merely a collection of names that say nothing important about the subject. The issue of ethnicity (or gender, sexual preference, or religious background) in any specific career is better addressed by writing articles on the subject rather than listing people in that career who belong to that specific group. Dr. Submillimeter 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Irrelevant intersection. AshbyJnr 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference -- Cat ^chi? 13:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom, similar to the recently deleted and blocked Category:Jewish figure skaters. Dugwiki 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Uninteresting category intersection. Dr.frog 20:01, 24 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl

Three days is hardly enought time for this debate Soapy 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overcategorization by name of people who have little else in common beyond using a name other than the one they were born with. Otto4711 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreation? What indicates that this was previously deleted? (Not the log, not a previous CfD.) –Unint 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not recent enough to qualify for a speedy. The old one was probably worded a little differently, but I guarantee you we've gone through at least one version of this one before. Regardless, delete excessively broad category with too many members. Doczilla 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is such a common practice for so many entertainers that it is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for obvious reasons. -- Cat ^chi? 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Speedy Delete, entertainers, authors, artists, etc are more commonly known by pseudonym than by actual name, and are listed under their most commonly recognized pseudonym. Creating a category to capture this is overcategorization. --MChew 04:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:00, 27 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the counterpoint to the apparently soon to be deleted category for rappers known by their birth names. This is overcategorization by name. Otto4711 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is such a common practice for so many rappers that it is not a defining characteristic. (Hey, aren't we all using pseudonyms, too?) Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. When my dad went to register my name, he couldn't remember what had been agreed with my mum, so this was what the registrar recorded. And I do hope that are not trying to suggest that "Submillimeter" is not the name recorded on your birth certificate ... ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a trivial characteristic, and overcategorization by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for obvious reasons. -- Cat ^chi? 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OrchWyn 10:27, 29 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to [[:Category:Businesspeople in <foo>]]. Sam Blacketer 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - there is no objective definition of what constitutes a "magnate" so these categories are based on a subjective inclusion criterion. Otto4711 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as components of a new category for Businesspeople by type of business. There are a few such categories now, e.g. Bankers, but not all those necessary. DGG 05:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "People in the X industry" or a variant thereof. ("People in" is probably the only term that covers, owners, entrepreneurs and executives). AshbyJnr 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that "Businesspeople in", as "people" would include employees like models, actors and presenters for some industries like fashion and media. AshbyJnr 09:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:"Nationality" "industry" executives of the Foo century--see below. Was previously: ~~Keep~~ if someone can come up with objective criteria for inclusion in such categories. Failing that,And Comment--I populated the timber magnates category by using search terms such as "timber baron". The terminology referring to people as "barons", "moguls", and "magnates" is widespread (see Business magnate), especially for the 19th-century robber baron-type folks, thus they seem like useful designations to me, if non-subjective criteria can be applied. Note that for the railroad magnates there are categories like Category:American railroad executives of the 19th century--I think the potential renaming should follow that example. I think magnate implies not just a businessperson but an executive, and one who has made the bulk of his or her (substantial) fortune in a particular industry. Katr67 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not the first time categories in this area have come up for discussion. I think that I'm in favor of moving these from magnates since they don't fall under the definition found in magnate. So to avoid confusion, the question is what would be the better title. 'Business people' as suggested above is one option but may be too broad. I would jump at using 'industrialist' but some of cats above may not be industries. The other option is 'tycoon' which redirects to Business magnate. So maybe Category:Fooian tycoons would be the best choice. Vegaswikian 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seemed to me like "tycoon" is even less objective than "magnate". However, the definition (Webster's Collegiate, 11th ed.) of "tycoon" is: a businessman of exceptional wealth and power: MAGNATE. Katr67 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. magnate n. man of wealth, authority, etc. - from the "Little Oxford Dictionary." There may be a case to rename as given above, but Katr67 seem to have thought about this. I 'm afraid I can't think of a better term. It does have wide currency, I believe, and they would they would become populated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred.e (talk • contribs) 23:28, April 24, 2007 add link 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep votes need to suggest dealing with the Magnate article which right now is a mix of some definitions and specific to a group of people. Does the class of people need to be split out and Business magnate be merged in? The category and the category with the same name should have clean criteria for who is covered. The category is no good if the coverage is too broad. Vegaswikian 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, forgot to sign. I agree with this comment. This needs sorting out at the various talk pages to sort out the definition of this noun. They should be kept one way or another. It is not wiktionary:opprobrium if seen in a NPOV and mis-categorization can be sorted, case by case. (signed:-) Fred 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:Businesspeople in ... The dictionary definition quoted above does not reflect what a colourful, loaded term "magnate" is. It is not bland enough to be suitable for use in Wikipedia category names. Haddiscoe 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename per Haddiscoe. Magnate is POV and not objectively definable. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is there better source for a "bland" definition? ... is there a more objective one? 2. It is not a loaded or colourful [word] in Australia, does anyone have a reference for it being elsewhere? Still keep at this stage ... ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)add [word] 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Category:Businesspeople in ..., taking care to use the most natural terms in each case. It's a good idea to have a category for each industry, but there only needs to be one per industry, and "Magnate" excludes most modern businesspeople. Greg Grahame 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- to delete/merge all of these categories would be moronic, as they are specific version of businesspeople categories (which are already far too large). These categories are MUCH more specific than simply calling someone a 'businessperson,' as an "advertising exec." or "fashion magnate" aren't exactly the same as a 'businessperson.' --Wassermann 04:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:Businesspeople in .... Trying to decide who is a "magnate" and who isn't is a subjective exercise, and one category per industry will be sufficient. OrchWyn 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 rename Category:Cuban newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Cuba. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Newspapers published in Cuba, convention of Category:Newspapers by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename AshbyJnr 09:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom, and per WP:CFD#Speedy_criteria #4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename -- Cat ^chi? 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, per nom. --Soman 09:49, 27 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Newspapers published in Singapore. Sam Blacketer 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Newspapers published in Singapore, convention of Category:Newspapers by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename AshbyJnr 09:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom, and per WP:CFD#Speedy_criteria #4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Speedy rename -- Cat ^chi? 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename above two cats and adding similar:

Category:Gambian newspapers

Category:Newspapers in Cape Verde --Shuki 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 rename Category:Murray State Racers men's basketball coaches to Category:Murray State Racers basketball coaches. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murray State Racers men's basketball coaches to Category:Murray State Racers basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This school uses "Lady Racers" for all its women's programs. Also, the parallel category for men's players at the school is at Category:Murray State Racers basketball players. Dale Arnett 01:22, 24 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sam Blacketer 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a subjective blacklist labeling criticism in part as opposition in full, implying the false dilemma that one is either pro- or anti-. The article anti-Mormonism redundantly covers these accusations and related rejections of the label. Such blacklists are utilized for censorship and propaganda purposes within Mormonism, with disciplinary actions for people who read banned authors. Anon166 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subjective, unpopulated, unencyclopedic. --TheEditrix2 00:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent category was deleted and this is potentially worse than it.--T. Anthony 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ~~Anti-Mormons or~~ People opposed to Mormonism. --Blue Tie 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. No, we can't go with "Anti-Mormons" because those anti-religion categories have been getting deleted as subjective and potential attack categories. I once told a Mormon to go away. Does that make me anti-Mormon? Doczilla 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. I bet you also eat babies ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but don't Mormons do that too? -SESmith 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the very clear nomination as "subjective blacklist labeling criticism in part as opposition in full". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. Cat lovers or haters, Mormonism lovers or haters fall under this. -- Cat ^chi? 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice and block as POV. — Dale Arnett 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because parent was deleted. Cool Hand Luke 04:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -SESmith 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CoolCat's argument. --Saforrest 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective inclusion criterion. Holding an opinion is not a defining characteristic. BRMo 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 24

Category:Marx Brothers

Category:Christian books

Category:American Dad!

Category:Deceased porn stars

Category:Shows on Adult Swim

Category:Long song titles

Category:Players that owned Luongo

Category:Magnets

Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

Category:Comic book sidekicks

Category:Jackass

Category:Jackie Chan films

People by city in Maryland

Category:Films by culture

Category:Malaysian private universities

Category:Formerly Japan exclusive video game franchises

Category:Pseudoscience

Category:People with dyslexia

Category:Lists of fictional LGBT characters

Category:Lists of fictional characters by work

Category:Lists of fictional characters by medical condition

Category:Fictional albinos

Category:Fictional Amazons

Category:Fictional dyslexics

Figure skaters of religions

Category:People from Nashville

Category:People from Indianapolis

Category:People from Fort Worth

Category:Actors who Play Recasted characters

Category:People from Chicago Heights

Category:People from St. Louis

Category:People related to Mormonism-related controversies

American figure skaters by ethnicity

Category:People known by pseudonyms

Category:Rappers known by pseudonyms

Magnates

Category:Cuban newspapers

Category:Newspapers of Singapore

Category:Murray State Racers men's basketball coaches

People related to anti-Mormonism