< October 13	October 15 >

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to do with this category. It is clearly important that it exists, because unionism has been an important political force in Britain and Ireland since at least the 1880s, and remains the dominant political power in Northern Ireland. But this category currently has some unintended effects which I discovered by accident when I did a complete category dump for Category:Ireland and its subcats: this category is the bridge which places the British Conservative Party (and Conservative MPs and, even more absurdly, Scottish Unionist MPs) under Category:Ireland. It occurs to me that this could perhaps be resolved by trimming the sub-categories, or maybe by separating out Scottish Unionism from Irish unionism, because although closely related they are largely distinct phenomena. I'm listing the category here in the hope that more ideas can be generated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is Any cure will be worse than the disease. Unionism should clearly stay united, and it is not as if even Scottish Unionist MPs have had no part at all in the "Politics of Ireland" at points. Johnbod 11:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right that any cure will be worse than the disease, but I still hope that some wise person will prove us both wrong :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Unionist" for the historic Scottish Unionist Party referred to Ireland, not Scotland (the Union there wasn't a major issue at the time), the same as in the Conservatives' full name "Conservative and Unionist Party". Sometimes category structures throw up unintended consequences but rigid separation would make them worse. Timrollpickering 10:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in México to Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Mexico

Nominator's rationale: Removing diacritic mark from "Mexico"; common usage in WP is to not include it in category names. Snocrates 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Non-standard characters = bad news when searching and adding pages. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tim Q. Wells 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The article is at Mexico, which is the most commonly used English language name for the country. Carlossuarez46 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:British classical horn players to Category:British horn players

Nominator's rationale: British classical horn players essentially is British horn players. Horn players have no significant presence outside the classical arena. Cruftbane 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is part of a series of similar categories, all subcats of Category:Classical horn players by nationality. This series of categories should be considered together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The well-established guidance at WP:MUSCAT provides for categorising musicians by nationality, instrument and genre. Removing the genre element, which would be the effect of this merger, would remove Category:British horn players from the Category:Classical horn players by nationality and Category:British classical musicians category trees. There is no good reason for doing so. The assertion that "horn players have no significant presence outside the classical arena" is inaccurate. There is a category:Jazz horn players and, on looking at the previously unsorted names in that category, I found one who could go into a new category of Category:British jazz horn players. Bencherlite^Talk 09:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per bencherlite's comments; there are definitely non-classical hornplayers - i'm listening to some right now. --lquilter 13:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Names, please? That is, names of horn players who are predominantly non-classical? This is not an idle question, since I know several hundred horn players and have never met one whose primary genre is not classical. Cruftbane 13:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Tom Varner jazz french horn. --lquilter 13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! You got me. So: for this one player, we maintain an entire level of hierarchy for ecery single country for that instrument. He'd better be good! :o) Cruftbane 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose part of a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (WP:MUSCAT), and thus explicitly an exception to the guideline WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth. Probably has potential for growth in any case, as there are numerous other genres that use the horn (jazz, funk and soul, just to name a few). Xtifr _tälk 08:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Category:Welsh classical horn players and Category:Welsh horn players as empty. The only article, Ifor James, states he was born in Carlisle and then moved to London. The only reference to Wales is "Welsh to the core..." with no references. I moved him to Category:English classical horn players. Keep that, as it now has three articles (and you could have more by moving English horn players to that from the British cat. No consensus on Category:British horn players by genre . Kbdank71 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh classical horn players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:English classical horn players

Category:British horn players by genre

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, there was only one article in here so I am merging it to Category:British classical horn players, please consider also Category:English classical horn players for the same reason. Finally, Category:British horn players by genre. It is unclear to me what other genres of horn player there might be. I suppose one could in theory create a category for British avant-garde jazz horn players, but I strongly suspect that it would remain empty indefinitely. OK, I have met one jazz horn player and I know several classical horn players who play jazz, but all are primarily classical players. So it's a redudant category. Cruftbane 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please do not depopulate a category when nominating it at WP:CFD. I have restored the article which was removed from the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Welsh horn players. The national category remains relevant and is part of a long-established series of Welsh people-by-occupation categories, but there are too few articles on Welsh horn players to justify splitting the category between classical and other. Similarly, merge the two English horn player categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That vote was based on a nomination only for Category:Welsh classical horn players. I support upmerging Category:British horn players by genre, but keeping Category:British classical horn players (se the discussion above). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose upmerging Category:Welsh classical horn players and Category:English classical horn players, whether to Category:Welsh horn players etc or to Category:British classical horn players. (1) The general tendency is to allow sub-division of "British" occupational categories into English/Welsh etc when it is clear from their articles that that is appropriate; there is a well-established Category:Welsh classical musicians structure into which Category:Welsh classical horn players fits. (2) The guidance at WP:MUSCAT, which has been implemented across thousands of articles, categorises musicians by nationality, instrument and genre. Upmerging to a parent category that lacks the "genre" element removes the category from the Category:Classical musicians by nationality and Category:Classical musicians by instrument category trees, for no good reason. No real opinion on upmerging Category:British horn players by genre - the existence of such intermediate categories is set out in the guidance and has been used in many instances; that said, I've never been a real fan. Note, however, that there is now a Category:British jazz horn players alongside category:British classical horn players (see further the discussion above). Bencherlite^Talk 10:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh sod it, really, this is absurd. We must maintain categories of one, just in case? Recategorising one article is depopulating? This is style over substance in my view. Enough. Do what you like, I don't care if we end up looking stupid. Cruftbane 13:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you have some concrete number of articles in mind for when a category does not make us look stupid? The difference between zero and one is fairly obvious; but, I'm interested in how many articles you think need to exist, and (more importantly) why. Neier 09:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose upmerge of Welsh to British. It is a common category split, and the paucity of articles is no excuse to make an exception. Neier 09:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was oppose proposal. Kbdank71 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose creating Category:WikiProject essays subcategory. Many WikiProjects produce essays and wannabe-guidelines on very narrow topics (billiards-related spelling conventions, how to format highway intersection charts, etc., notability of various narrowly defined things, etc.). There is a longstanding overall consensus that such things are not Wikipedia guidelines - their audience and context are too narrow for the editorship at large to need to pay any attention to them - but they still have value, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a sense of how many of them there are, and where they are, because a certain activistic editor insists that they do not even qualify as Wikipedia essays and has been stripping them of the ((essay)) tag. This proposal's aim is to:

• Create the subcategory, with some intro text explaining what it is
• Create a ((projectessay)) template for such documents, which would automatically put tagged pages into this category
• Establish a precedent that such documents be so categorized (including any that illegitimately bear a ((guideline)) tag, or arguably legitimately under the current system bear a ((essay)) tag, or should be under a project but are presently outside the Wikipedia:WikiProject subnamespace)
• Record a consensus that no Category:WikiProject guidelines subcat of Category:Wikipedia guidelines be created; all such documents would be considered WikiProject essays (indeed, it should probably exist as a catredirect; and ((projectguideline)) be a redir to ((projectessay)) to prevent such a fork)
• Not interfere with the normal process of documents that begin as WikiProject essays going through a ((proposal)) phase to eventually become Wikipedia guidelines, or to merge into existing larger ones, if their scope is broad and important enough (c.f. Wikipedia:Notability (books), etc.), but (by providing a "home" for them) discourage attempts to designate as proposals or guidelines any documents of such narrow applicability that they do not make appropriate WP-wide guidelines.

NB: The genesis of this idea was this discussion.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose The problem is that project guidelines are not essays. They are an attempt to codify styles and processes unique to the articles within the purview of the specific project. Even if we end up calling it an essay or an editing convention, it will still be a style guide. We must also realize that even a project guide that has not been accepted WP-wide is still going to be used by the project. Admittedly, most of the project guides I have reviewed over the past month or so are not well organized. They really should be split into style guides, process guides and indexes.

This is an inter-WikiProject issue that many projects may not even be aware of; as such it really requires an inter-WikiProject solution. I propose that this be discussed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council so we can come to a common consensus on how to treat project guides. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a discussion on the root issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject guidelines --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. WikiProject guidelines are not aphorisms, as most essays are. Rather, they are WikiProject-supported guidelines. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: the definiton of essay does not extend out to guidelines that should be followed for smooth operation. It is merely a form of communication for which one expresses his/her point of view on an issue. This usage of essay is completely incorrect. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:05, 15 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment Incidentally, could one call them something other than project essays? I propose that the tag should be something more like ((project sponsored guidelines)) or such. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason why these guidelines should be put at a level below the others. Project sponsored guidelines is practically a euphemism for essay. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as WikiProject guidelines are that, guidelines. They have the possibility to become part of the Manual of Style given the appropriate vetting by the wider community. In the interim, they are still reasonable procedures for the most part, so the "essay" tag, which is left for what essentially are on-Wiki rants, is inappropriate here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and I don't really think we should be giving separate distinction between project guidelines and normal guidelines anyways, but they certainly are not essays. That being said, many times a guideline made by a project might have a more narrow focus, and should still follow the lead of Wikipedia-wide guidelines, but they are still guidelines. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Watchmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per abundant precedent against categorizing by superhero team membership. Wryspy 21:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is consensus in the comics project against categories for teams. Removing the characters leads to a thinly populated category with little chance for expansion anytime soon. So it might as well go. (Emperor 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Rename Category:Watchmen characters. This one's a self-contained universe; no characters from it appear anywhere else, and no characters from elsewhere appear in it. Plus with a movie on the way, they'll soon become movie characters under this name. So I'd leave it alone.--Mike Selinker 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is way hyper-specialized, and seems extremely fannish. Any general-audience reader can find all the links and references he needs at Watchmen. (I'd say the same of Category:Sin City. What's next? Category:Casper the Friendly Ghost? He's had comic books, theatrical cartoon shorts, a theatrical feature and some direct-to-video movies. But Watchmen and Sin City are more popular with comics fans, so no. In terms of the general reader, a miniseries (or collection of miniseries) adapted to film seems mighty thin for a category. --Tenebrae 23:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It may be self contained, but what is there now is all that will be there even if the movie happens. Consensus right now is to not include writers, artists, directors, producers, or actors in cats that boil down to Preformer by preformance. So that leaves the mini, the movie, and the characters, all of which should be interlinked to begin with. That makes a cat redundant, at best. - J Greb 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or templatize 132.205.44.5 05:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a complete template. Otto4711 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at least Rename as ambiguous. Vegaswikian 05:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an exhaustive navbox exists and links to every page in the category (and to real-life locations used in the series) and the category isn't needed. Otto4711 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - though I'd be in favor of a name change, given that the current name is vague enough to potentially confuse people.--Redeagle688 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Watchmen characters. Kuralyov 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is renamed, what do you suggest doing with Watchmen and Watchmen (film), which are not characters? Otto4711 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ocat, and a confusing name to boot. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant, Template:Watchmen includes all of these articles. -- 69.182.73.240 07:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep per precedent/other PR military cats. Kbdank71 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Puerto Rican Air Force personnel to Category:Puerto Rican United States Air Force personnel

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The current capitalization is inappropriate as there is no such thing as the Puerto Rican Air Force. All the members of the category were in the USAF. Tanbace 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but Category:United States Air Force personnel from Puerto Rico reads more easily & is clearer still. Johnbod 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Johnbod's suggestion. Snocrates 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - it's named in accordance with every other subcat of Category:Puerto Rican people by occupation and no one's going to be confused for more than a second. Otto4711 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are several more of these: Category:Puerto Rican military personnel, Category:Puerto Rican Army personnel, Category:Puerto Rican Navy personnel, Category:Puerto Rican Marines, Category:Puerto Rican military officers. Some of them have preambles specifying that their scopes include Spain's and other countries' forces. ×Meegs 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, per Otto4711. Tony the Marine 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monk (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per extensive precedent, category not warranted for the show article and the ep and character subcats. Otto4711 19:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Journeyman (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following stub merger and general cleanup, the remaining material here doesn't warrant an eponymous category. Eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 18:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brothers & Sisters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unwarranted eponymous category for a TV show. Not needed for episode and character subcats per extensive precedent. Otto4711 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Californication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Category not needed for show article and episodes subcat per extensive precedent. Otto4711 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (though a little sadly: I have always like the term since I first heard of the 1970s bumper sticker "Don't Californicate Oregon". However, a word-I-enjoy is no reason to keep a category). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sunset Beach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - empty except for a navtemplate. No need for the category. Otto4711 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actor-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American actor-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this category and its subcat were nominated previously but in each case the nominations were muddied by other issues. The American cat was nominated for deletion when the discussion was really more geared to a merge (closed no consensus) and when the parent was nominated it was put up with some other categories of unclear relationship. In looking specifically at the actor-politician intersection, I believe it's a non-notable or trivial one for purposes of categorization. A list article exists and that's better IMHO because this is the sort of thing that is better served in many cases with some explanatory text. Otto4711 14:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I certainly don't believe the intersection is non-notable or trivial - no-one I think who knows anything at all about Indian politics could believe that for a moment. I'd better not comment on the US. A decent article would be ideal - the list is not good at distinguishing between people who were stars or those who just used to be actors - which the category does not do either of course. I'm not sure about the category. Johnbod 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm on the fence about the need for a separate American subcat, but I believe that the parent cat is clearly notable, given the large amount of public discourse in mainstream media about the topic. Girolamo Savonarola 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both Ok, I'm sold, per me & GS. If the main cat is to stay, the 25-strong US sub-cat is justified just on numbers. Johnbod 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep quality categories don't come along this often, it is notable, and non-trivial. --Buridan 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed, btw, there are 74 in the 2 categories and only 36 on the list. Johnbod 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete both. I appreciate that there are good reasons to see this as a significant intersection, and I was tempted to say keep ... but the bottom line is that this is one of many possible intersection categories between politicians and other professions. How about clergy-politicians? (IP) Lawyer-politicians? (BC) Soldier-politicians? (CP) Scientist politicians? (MT). There are good arguments for creating all of these categories, and the only reason that we are looking here at actor-politicians rather than the other possible categories is that actor-politicians get a lot of attention in the audiovisual media. We could speculate on the reasons for that, but this is an encyclopedia, not a celebrity TV show, and we need to take a wider view rather than following the lead of broadcasters who naturally focus on the most media-exposed personalities. Outside of the broadcast media, in academia and in other forums for political analysis, actor-politicians are a much less significant phenomenon.
  So the real choice here is whether we are going to pen the doors to a slew of politician-[other profession] categories, or delete this category and develop the list. Most major politicians are already over-categorised; adding these intersection categories will only make things worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier/politicians are pretty well covered by Category:Leaders who took power by coup. The reason that these two have categories, and lawyer/politicians etc (non-lawyer policians would be simpler) do not, is that these are by a long way the commonest professions where a person at the top of their first career can slide directly into senior political office. I'm slightly amazed by your comments otherwise - in the UK and Ireland the phenomenon is thank heavens not significant, but this is a parochial view. In the worlds two largest democracies it is a huge issue, which it is crazy to refuse to recognise. Johnbod 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an overbroad assertion. Leaders who took power by coup are not necessarily politicians, participating in the political process. --lquilter 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier politicians covered by those who took Leaders who took power by coup? I don't think that it would be a good idea to add to that category the very significant soldier-politicians who didn't stage a coup: Wellington, Powell, Jackson, Eisenhower, Grant, de Gaulle, and many many others. The actor-politician is a phenomenon which currently gets a lot of attention, but it's a relatively recent breed; the United States has had one actor-president, but several soldier-presidents, who have been well-placed to (as you put it) slide directly into senior political office.
This is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and the politician categories have a long historical scope. Are we going create intersection categories solely on the basis of recent phenomena, or are we going to take a longer and more encyclopedic view? Keeping these actor-politician categories without other intersections such as soldier-politicians is a clear case of recentism, a form of systemic bias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep for Actor-politician. In our country the two are REALLY intertwined. Heck, we even have a president that is one. I put my claim as weak keep to respect other cultures where this profession is not that known or common. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep for both, per Johnbod Anirvan 04:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl's position. --Voidvector 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. There is certainly a useful article that could be made about "celebrity entertainer politicians" (which just actors? models and other entertaiment/performer celebrities benefit from the same skills & recognition) but it's not, in itself, uniquely defining. And it does set a bad precedent for other multi-career categories. --lquilter 13:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep on both - Far from being trivial, Wikipedia would be seriously remiss not to have this category -- and precisely because it is a growing trend in politics (although it extends back nearly six decades in the United States). This should not be dismissed as mere "recentism" or pandering to interest in celebrities. As Lenticel points out, these professions are increasingly intertwined (in the U.S. and elsewhere); it's a significant socio-political phenomenon, and something that many people are very concerned about. On another point, Category:Actor-politicians was created two full years ago, yet we have not seen a proliferation of xxx-politician sub-cats -- so that is clearly an exaggerated concern. (I think BHG must have had one of those hyper-caffeinated soft-drinks! :) Cgingold 13:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPA, please. A question: if this is not recentism, do you support creating categories for the longer-established classes of soldier-politicians, lawyer-politicians or clergy-politicians? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would not. Most politicians in Britain and the US for most of the last century were either lawyers or had seen military service. In the Middle Ages vast numbers of ministers were clergymen. I would actually be happy to restrict the present category to "Stars who became politicians" (thus dropping say Andrew Faulds) but we know that "star" is impossibly subjective. But that is the phenomenon that should be categorised, very much as an exception. Johnbod 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poindexter, Eisenhower, Stockdale and North are just four examples of US military-politicians who had notable military careers in an era where that was unusual. Abel Muzorewa, Martin Smyth and Ian Paisley are clergy-politicians from a time when that was a rare combination. Consider too the super-rich politicians (Bloomberg, Ashcroft), another current phenomenon.
The only reason I see being advanced here for keeping the actor-politician category but not the other intersections is that it is currently receiving a lot of media attention (as noted by you and by Cgingold), which is why I still think that making an exception of this category is a clear case of recentism. This is, of course, of the issues which would be nicely resolved if we had dynamic category intersection ... but we don't, which is why we limit the number of intersection categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not challenging the concept and whether it's notable to describe in an encyclopedia; I'm challenging its appropriateness for category structures. The list should do nicely. --lquilter 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, like many lists, it has left than half of the category contents. Johnbod 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not expand the list? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BHG and precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Musician politicians. Quoting the nominator there: "Politicians come from all walks of life: lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, writers, actors, astronauts, sportspeople. I don't believe we need categories for each intersection of current and previous career." I note that we don't have an article on Actor-politicians—if it's not notable enough for an article on the topic (not a list), why do we need a category? (And no, this is not a challenge to create the article; such an article would be mostly original research/synthesis, I suspect.) Xtifr _tälk 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I remind Xtifr that there is no requirement that such an article be written; however, there's no question that an article could be written, and there would be more than adequate sourcing for it, so it wouldn't require original research.

Second, I beg to differ with BHG's comment about "notable military careers in an era where that was unusual". Aside from pointing out the glaring absences from her shortlist (John Kerry, John McCain, and Wesley Clark spring immediately to mind), it's such a well-established phenomenon in this country that it's hardly worth noting. On the question of "recentism", the fact that this subject is noteworthy has nothing to do with a sudden increase in media coverage -- I'm not aware of any recent upsurge in coverage by the news media. As I said it's a trend that has been gathering steam for more than five decades -- which actually sets it apart from clergy and military officers -- and is widely viewed with concern. Cgingold 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cgingoild, I'm afraid that your argumnets are very confused.

First, my list was not intended to be comprehensive, just to point out a few notables. I think agree that the military-politician phenomenon exists, and although we could both expand it, my point is that it is covers a minority of modern US politicians. (Yes, many contemporary US politicians served in the military, but relatively few achieved notability through that service).

Secondly, your point about "a trend that has been gathering steam for more than five decades" endorses my point about recentism. Category:American politicians spans more than two centuries, but your cases for keeping this one but not the others is based on the actor-politician intersection being sigificant in recent times rather than across the whole of the category which it seeks to subdivide. However anyone tries to dress this up, it is recentism, which is great in a news service but not in an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. We have utterly contrasting notions of what the word "recent" denotes and what the Wiki term recentism refers to, BHG. That essay speaks to the need for editors to have "long-term historical perspective". In my book, "more than five decades" is a fairly substantial period of time, whereas all of the examples of "recentism" that are cited fall within a much shorter time-span (more like 0-3 years). That's why I took pains to distinguish this ongoing phenomenon from such transient events. Five-plus decades is only "recent" in terms of geological time -- but then, by that standard, all of human history is "recent"! :) Cgingold 18:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's most pertinent to an consider "recent" in terms of the timespan covered by the category. "American politician" is concept between 250 and 400 years old, depending on definition. Your argument is that we should keep the actor-politician intersection sub-cat because it is a notable phenomenon in 50 of those years, but not create a military-politician subcat which is phenomenon of varying strength throughout the whole period and includes some very prominent politicians. That's prioritising the recent, but the "long-term historical perspective" looks at the whole period of American politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If I got a dollar (or better yet, a pound) every time somebody here at CFD insisted that "we don't need a category, all we need is a list", I would make the Forbes list. But I would be equally wealthy if I got a dollar (or a pound) every time somebody over at AFD insisted that "we don't need a list, all we need is a category". This kind of thing really drives me up the wall -- it goes on continually, with the CFD folks oblivious to the AFD folks, and vice versa. I could swear that Joseph Heller wrote a story about this! It's all the more irksome in light of this passage from WP:CLS: "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other." I couldn't say it better myself. Cgingold 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually read WP:CLS? As it says, there are some cases where an article is best, and some where a category is best, and some where both is needed. The system seems to be working well, with well-defined guidelines at WP:CAT and WP:OCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I have. No need for eye-gouging or hair pulling. Here's the rest of the paragraph I quoted from:

"...since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. One should not be deleted in favor of the other. Instead, each should be used to update the other. This provides two core methods of navigating Wikipedia. / The 'category camp' shouldn't dismantle Wikipedia's list-based navigation system, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system."

I whole-heartedly endorse this approach and the underlying philosophy it reflects. Cgingold 18:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. The category camp certainly isn't trying to dismantle lists right now, is it? ... I agree that there is a big problem with AFDers saying "let's do a category" and CFDers saying "there should be a list". I've weighed in at AFD just to make the point that something is not, contrary to assertion, a good category. We need more cross-over discussions. Perhaps adding list/category cross-links would be helpful. (IMO the experience is asymmetric: CFDers often have AFD experience, but AFDers don't have CFD experience.) Unfortunately, the (granted) existence of this problem doesn't help resolve any particular situation. --lquilter 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful source of information, Categories are useful navagational tools, lists less so. King of the North East (T/C) 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & BHG's excellent reasoning. Also, there are no end to mixing of two careers: Category:Waiter-actors (KD), Category:Porn stars-polticians (IS), Category:Musician-environmentalists (Bono), Category:Painter-police officers (AH), and gagillions of others. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought up these hypothetical categories, because they actually help to illustrate what sets Category:Actor-politicians apart. With the possible exception of Category:Porn stars-politicians (porn stars are actors, at least nominally, and there are a couple already listed in Category:Actor-politicians), they're all good examples of non-notable, random intersections. In contrast, Category:Actor-politicians reflects the fact that acting ability is related to success in politics and visibility/name recognition is related to electoral success. (No guarantees on either score, of course, but significant factors.) Cgingold 06:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random intersections? Surely you aren't claiming that Bono and Sting's ability to adopt of high-profile environmental/political roles is unconnected to their musical success? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. I was leaning toward delete per Meegs' argument, but until those merges are complete, we probably shouldn't delete this. Kbdank71 13:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skull Island species (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a small category and is unlikely to expand. Delete. Eddie's Teddy 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing small about King Kong, surely :). Plus we are due for more sequels. Johnbod 14:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:King Kong species. All other subcategories of Category:Fictional species identify by source, not by fictional location.--Mike Selinker 17:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing how that addresses the "small and unlikely to grow" aspect of the nomination. Eddie's Teddy 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's an okay size for a category like this. The five articles here belong together, rather than dispersed through Category:Fictional species.--Mike Selinker 07:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no reason to rename this trivia. Wryspy 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wow, first time to be here. Anyways, I came here after searching for a category for Terapusmordax obscenus. I'm ok for either delete (I'll put this in fictional bats instead) or keep (just another cat for the article).--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This category was previously dicussed and kept in June 2006. So long as we have these articles, categorizing them by source material makes a lot of sense, as does Mike's rename proposal. However, an AfD in October decided that 15 species articles (presumably the entire contents of this category at that time except for King Kong) should be merged into The World of Kong. Since then, Vastatosaurus rex has been recreted and Terapusmordax obscenus created for the first time. The cat's final current member, Sumatran Rat-Monkey has a history beyond King Kong. I suggest that the AfD be enforced by merging/redirecting Vastatosaurus rex and Terapusmordax obscenus, and deleting this category. It is not worth keeping just for King Kong and the Sumatran Rat-Monkey. ×Meegs 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 23. Kbdank71 13:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Velvet Eden demo tapes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Velvet Eden albums, probably best to put them all together. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physician astronauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Physician-astronauts, or Delete. Normally double occupation categories are not a good idea, however we've made exceptions in the past for Actor-politicians and Singer-songwriters. I can see arguments either way, but in this case I'm leaning slightly towards renaming it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable intersection. No comparison to singer-songwriter as those two occupations are very tightly intertwined. Doctor and astronaut are not, except in the minds of children who want to be both. Put the actor-politician one up again and let's get rid of it. Otto4711 14:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've put the Actor-politician categories up for deletion. We didn't really make an exception for them. They were kept no consensus after two muddled nominations. Otto4711 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (not sure about rename) - I don't think it's correct to view the selection of physicians to serve as astronauts as an incidental matter. For one thing, medical surveillance and potential treatment of crew members is obviously a major concern. They also are usually involved in carrying out studies of human physiology and similar areas related to their expertise. I consider this a valuable intersection that is of real use for readers exploring the subject of humans in space. Cgingold 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary intersection of variables. They're already categorized as both physicians and astronauts, and their club has too few members anyway. Wryspy 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) "already categorized as both physicians and astronauts" - Please bear in mind, the point is NOT what you can see on the article, but rather what a reader finds when browsing through the category structure. 2) "too few members" - Don't be ridiculous. Since when is 13 articles "too few"? Cgingold 00:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Intersection of two non-related careers. Unless it soon becomes standard procedure to conduct surgeries in space, I doubt this will be necessary for a long time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - non-defining intersection. Unless there is likely going to be a wikipedia article (sourced by reference to multiple books and articles) about physician astronauts then it's not necessary. --lquilter 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This category is potentially very useful because I was trying to find out who which astronauts were doctors and it was very hard. Google the terms and NO easy list pops up. In fact, the current category is incomplete and needs to be added (this is not easy and takes time! That's why the category is so potentially useful!). There have been articles about the serious problem of astronauts being in space so long (Int'l Space Station or future Mars trip) yet bringing them back to Earth for a possible medical evaluation is very difficult to arrange.

While there are more votes to delete, the reasons for keep are sound reasons. I am interested in writing an article about physician astronauts and the real discussion about this topic in NASA (documented online, in part) which addresses one of the delete concerns. As far as renaming, the suggestions so far are all fine. Apollo 17 astronaut Schmitt writes about physician astronauts as a solution here [1]. There is a NASA physician astronauts and flight surgeons society. Those who want to delete are encouraged to improve the articles or add to the list of names! Bottom line:there are reliable sources/citations about physician astronauts as a solution to a space-related problem and this category helps link physician astronauts (past and present) so that the reader can learn more. Archtransit 15:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful source of information. Having too few members is NOT justification for deleting a category. The argument that they are categorised as Category:Physicians & Category:Astronauts separately is also irrelevant. It would be extremely difficult to identify each of the Physician-Astronauts through comparing the members of the two seperate categories. The argument that there needs to be a WP article on Physician-Astronauts is also no good, there are hundreds of categories of the type "people from....", "....football managers" & "Sport in...." without having seperate articles about the subject. The argument that there is little need for surgery in space is both daft and irrelevant.King of the North East (T/C) 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is actually arguing "that there needs to a WP article". Rather, the point is that it's highly unlikely that an article would or could be written about this "topic". See Wikipedia:Overcategorization for a discussion of "non-notable intersection". For instance, there are no academic programs to become an "astronaut physician" or "physician astronaut". There are no biographical encyclopedias about "astronaut physicians". There is one internal government specialty group but nothing that would one clearly articulate as a "professional association" for "astronaut physicians". Etc. In short, there are physicians who become astronauts and practice medicine in space, but that does not itself make a category. It's not a profession; it's an occupational specialty of a profession. There are physicians who accompany Arctic explorers, too, but we don't need a special category for them. Not every random intersection of interest to someone writing a report for school or a newspaper article needs a category. If a lot of people end up writing about this and there are lots of original resources recognizing the existence of this as a topic, then Wikipedia -- an encyclopedia that by definition synthesizes secondary sources -- could appropriately include an article on the subject, and a category could follow if it turned out that people's status as "physician astronauts" was in fact defining more than there status as a physician and as an astronaut. --lquilter 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

highly unlikely that an article could be written about the topic? It's on my "to do" list. I am working on such an article! It will be about the problems of health in space and physician astronaut roles. Like all my articles, it will be based on reliable sources! Archtransit 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename all to include the word "county". This is intended to be a final tidyup of all the categories missed in the splurge of similar group nominations last weekend: see CfD Oct 6 and CfD Oct 7. I have trawled through a complete list of subcats of Category:Ireland, and I think I have found all the county categories which were missing the word "county", except for a few GAA-related categories which should be considered separately. --16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• this nomination is now complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree – "county" should be in the titles - hopefully you have found them all, but I expect there will be more hidden to be done. ww2censor 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, & take a well-deserved break! Johnbod 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - what a mountain of work you've done here. (Sarah777 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Addition: I have just added Category:History of Dublin to Category:History of County Dublin (the target is currently a ((category redirect))). Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This should be an automatic response after so much precedent.--Mike Selinker 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A Fine Frenzy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The artist has only released one album. A category is highly unnecessary. Gimme More 11:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per ProveIt. This is a rare exception of being just one entry in a category. Can this be speedily closed? Lugnuts 12:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be closed now if the nominator withdraws it, or closed later per WP:SNOW if there are only keep votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 23. Kbdank71 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former designated terrorist organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The word terrorist falls under Words to avoid. The category should be either deleted or renamed to something that is not POV. --VartanM 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is; terrorist is what these orgs were designated as and WP is not to use weasel words just to get around inconvenient truth. The MOS states 'terrorist' can be used when the organization is 'designated as such'. This and other similar categories include the government/body making the 'designation'. This is not POV; this is just showing the org had the designation Hmains 16:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HmainsTanbace 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Former terrorist designated organizations to make it clear that the members of the category have been designated as terrorists by an external source, as is required by the MOS. This should help reduce any POV concerns, but I wouldn't be opposed to a simple keep either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is problematic. I would prefer to see the "designated terrorist" categorisations removed entirely, because they reflect one particular worldview, and are applied selectively, so under this approach the ANC is labelled as terrorist by wikipedia, but the Contras are not: that's about as POV as you can get.
  However, there is a further problem with this category, because its meaning is unclear: does it mean organisations formerly designated as terrorist (such as the now-peaceful ANC), or defunct organisations which were in their time labelled terrorist? (e.g. the Irgun) The category currently includes both sorts, which merely demonstrates the confusion about its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion - In that case, would it be more feasible to split this into two categories: Category:Former organizations designated as terrorists and Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorists? This keeps the antecedents clear, while still retaining the aspect of separation from the designation itself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I like your suggestions but its missing who designated them as terrorist. If its the US State Departmant than it should be Category:Former organizations designated as terrorist by US State Department. Otherwise its Wikipedia labeling them as such. --VartanM 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a bit better, but it still perpetuates the problem of categories which apply the label "terrorist" to groups which were disapproved of by the major Western states, without the same tag being applied to groups which met with their approval. That's a grave breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a fundamental principal of the project. This sort of material should be covered in lists, where the bare labels can be accompanied by some wider explanation of the nature of that particular group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPOV. Organizations that turn away from terrorism should be given the respect for doing so, not once again tied to it. --Voidvector 10:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains, or split per Hersfold. The "designated" is the way we have chosen to solve the problems of definition, and deletion would be wholly unjustified censorship. Johnbod 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorisation is a method of sorting content. Censorship might be a relevant word if we were discussing the deletion of articles, but that's not wht CfD is for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and split per Hersfold & Johnbod. King of the North East (T/C) 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep terrorist is to be avoided, but as described in the article Designated terrorist organizations, the label has real world consequences - it's not WP saying that these organizations were terrorists, it is that we're saying that someone designated them as terrorists which had the consequences described in the article. Carlossuarez46 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 10th Kingdom characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer has any articles as all articles within have been wiped and redirect to the main 10th Kingdom article. Collectonian 08:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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