< January 20	January 22 >

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. I live in Hagley. It has a population of about 5500, of which about 1000 are in Clent Parish, but I do not think it needs a category of its own. The category currently contains one article - that on the village. I can think of a handful more that might go in, together with a few famous people from the village. All of this can be found in the vilalge article. Accordingly the category is unnecessary, nice though it might be to have one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Or merge somewhere? Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The one article is already in Category:Villages in Worcestershire, so no merge needed. LeSnail (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:20, 27 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sardi's caricature subjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete category. This category captures "celebrities who have posed for Sardi's caricatures" at Sardi's, a NYC restaurant. This is overcategorization of a variety of celebrities by a trivial and non-defining aspect of people. Lquilter (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my contention that this category represents an important element of Broadway and indeed New York City history. These portraits are housed in the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts library, which, I believe supports the importance of this category. These individuals range from Pulitzer Prize winners, to politicians, to performers. For the same reason that Hollywood Walk of Fame exists as a category, it seems only fair that this category remains as well. This category is the closeat thing that New York City has to a hall of fame. J. Van Meter (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as list exists (see below) Listify - perfect case for this. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unimportant trivia. Quatloo (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very curious -- can you please explain how this category is any more trivial than the Hollywood Walk of Fame? (Or, for that matter "Adoptive parents", "American Racehorse owners", or "Towson Tigers Men's basketball coaches"?) There are several hundred entries in the the Sardi's caricature category. (There are two in Towson Tigers Men's Basketball coaches.) Can we re-examine what qualifies as trivial? Please keep this category. It is the east coast equivalent of the Walk of Fame. J. Van Meter (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. We limit the total numbers of categories on articles for reasons of usability, and "defining attribute" is one of the ways we do it. "Defining" is something that I think of as, in biographical articles, a characteristic that defines the individual. When I see the people in this category, I would never think of them as first and foremost -- or even tenth and tenth-most -- as "subjects of Sardi's caricatures". ... You ask about Hollywood Walk of Fame. I can't say that one is more notable than the other, except that I've heard of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I'm someone who tends to think almost all awards would be better handled by a list, but I can't speak to the HWOF until I look at it more. --Lquilter (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. If "defining" is a measure used to limit categories however, then every "Burials at...." category should be eliminated. And yet those are some of the most fascinating and informative categories listed. (Where but Wikipedia could you discover in one click that Ezra Pound and Igor Stravinsky are lying in the same cemetery for example... but that fact defines neither of them.) The rush to delete the Sardi's category seems rather arbitrary in the face of so many other bizarre, "non-defining" and barely populated categories. An entire book is devoted to the Sardi's portraits ("Off the Wall at Sardi's" -Applause Books, 1991) and being drawn for one is considered a huge milestone in the career of anyone working in the entertainment industry. I'm guessing you live on the west coast since you've heard of the Hollywood Walk of Fame, but not of the Sardi's caricatures. I, personally, had never heard of the Sarah Siddons Award (until I wandered around Wikipedia that is), but I don't live in Chicago and would never dream of nominating it for deletion. Please reconsider. J. Van Meter (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a consensus-process, so your arguments may sway others. However, just a couple of points. (1) For most of what I would call "subject-oriented" categories, "defining" is a pretty good way of thinking about it. However, there are some maintenance-type categories ("living people", "YEAR births", "YEAR of establishment", etc.). And there are plenty of category trees that get created and haven't yet been considered, or have survived because of lack of consensus or a strong fangroup. So it's not a perfectly consistent system, although it would be nice if it were. But pointing out the lack of consistency isn't a very strong argument -- see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially the "Individual merit" section. (2) I've lived in NYC as well as in SF, but I just don't follow celebrity culture. However, this is a consensus-process, so it's not just about me. FWIW, I would be inclined to delete the Hollywood Walk of Fame, too, but I'm a bit tired of CFD fights this week and the TV/film fans are very argumentative, so I probably won't go there. (3) Most importantly, none of this is a criticism of Sardi's or a suggestion that Sardi's is non-notable. All of the points you make are excellent responses -- if we were suggesting deletion of an article. But the responses about the value and notability of the content don't really help very much when talking about categories. Certainly as a threshold matter there has to be some value & notability, but there are a lot of other considerations in thinking about what makes a good category and a good category system. --Lquilter (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The purpose of categories is to aid in finding related articles. The fact that an actor's caricature hangs in Sardi's does not give him or her any substantial connection with the other people in the category. There is already a List of caricatures at Sardi's restaurant, so this category is redundant as well as irrelevant. If one is interested in whose caricatures are there, one can find that article on the list, which is referenced in the Sardi's article. See WP:OCAT: This seems to me to be a textbook case of over-categorization. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify non-defining as a category, but no objection to a list article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already the List of caricatures at Sardi's restaurant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful cat - a who's who of movers and shakers in theatre. Haon (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Already exists as List of caricatures at Sardi's restaurant, which is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Sardi's caricatures have been a New York theater tradition since 1927. In that sense, a Sardi's caricature is almost like an award. Thus, a category item at the bottom of a page shows a particular person was a key member of the NY theater community. These caricatures are part of the Lincoln Center Billy Rose Collection and also the subject of a book, Off the Wall at Sardi's (Applause Books, 2000). Other caricatures are part of the National Portrait Gallery/Smithsonian collections. The use of the word "trivia" is conspicuous above, since I have previously observed on other pages that more than a few people on Wikipedia dislike caricatures and, in some instances, have deleted them. But caricature is a specialty art form that is not easy. I know an artist who can do spot on lifelike portraits but claims he cannot do caricatures. Jack Davis' artwork for movie posters, ads and magazine covers made him one of the highest paid illustrators in the world, which doesn't seem so trivial. Ditto for the artistry expressed by caricaturists William Auerbach-Levy and Al Hirschfeld. Pepso2 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word "trivia" has nothing whatsoever to do with diminishing caricature as an art. If these were portraits by Leonardo da Vinci I would still call it "trivia". It is trivia, as a category on the person, because it says nothing essential about the person who is the subject of the art. That is not equivalent to saying the caricatures are trivial. A person is defined by their accomplishments and occupations and identities, not by their representations in art. --Lquilter (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Lisa del Giocondo might disagree with you on that point. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• If anyone would, it would be Lisa -- or rather, art historians who think about Lisa -- but the vast, vast majority of portraiture subjects are not "defined" by being painted by someone else. --Lquilter (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a great example: There is no category for "people whose portraits hang in the Louvre Museum," and such a list would be a better topic for a list article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the occasional urge to get Lisa, Giovanni Arnolfini, Elizabeth Siddal, Anna McNeill Whistler and some others into Category:People only famous as the subjects of portraits, but so far when the urge comes I think of Otto and desist :) Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if it is an award then it's overcategorization by award. If it's not an award, it's still overcategorization by non-defining aspect or characteristic. The list is sufficient for anyone interested in the topic. As for the suggested comparison to the Hollywood Walk of Fame, I have no problem with deleting that either and have considered several times nominating it myself. Otto4711 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-defining;retain existing list. William Avery (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category-in-question creator here again -- I don't see how the existence of a list means there also shouldn't be a category. Columbia University Alumni exists for example as a category, a list, AND a section of the main article. Same goes for burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery (list, category and main article section) -- to name just two of many examples. The list of caricatures at Sardi's is so heavily populated that it seemed reasonable, logical and helpful to create a category. The last time I created a list (List of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning), it was deleted by a group of people that prefer categories to lists. Based on that experience, to be prudent, this time I created a category -- and, (oh irony of life) now I run into a group that prefers lists instead of categories! I assume good faith from all of you, but I'm afraid many Wikipedia contributors use the "Because I've never heard of it" yardstick to determine notability and importance. This is a dangerous and slippery slope. For example, I don't give a rat's ass that Rita Hayworth was a Racehorse owner, but I certainly would never be so egocentric as to nominate that cateogry for deletion. It is obviously important, notable, useful and valid to many many other people - just not me. As a matter of fact, I just learned quite a bit more about caricatures from Pepso2's post above than I knew before. And isn't the point of Wikipedia to share knowledge and information. Please be aware that while you're over here in this room nominating categories for deletion, another group of folks is busy in another room writing the "Wikipedia is not a group of lists!!" doctrine getting rid of every list they find. The left hand doesn't know what the right is doing, and before long you'll all narrowmindedly delete everything you've "never heard of" and that will be that. I don't think that's right, or what Wikipedia is all about. J. Van Meter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Some of us watch AFDs for lists, to try to get consistency. If you see something that appears inconsistent, please feel free to post a notice on Wikipedia talk:CFD. (2) Lists and categories (and series boxes) have different functions, as you point out, and just because one exists doesn't mean the other shouldn't. However, because they have different functions, they have different criteria for utility. To be useful we keep categories to a relative minimum. (3) Any category needs to be considered both (a) as a category, whether it is likely to capture defining aspects of people and work functionally as a category, and (b) whether it is appropriately applied in any given instance. If Rita Hayworth's activities as a racehorse owner are trivial and non-defining of her, then that category should be removed from her article, even if the category itself is defining of other people. --Lquilter (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• well that's precisely the point isn't it. some categories DO help to define a subject and i believe that is the case with the Sardi's category. Alan Dinehart for instance is classified as a B-movie actor. that gives you part of the picture about him. however, with the addition of the Sardi's category, you get a better picture. turns out, he's not 'just' a B-movie actor, he's a 'somebody' in New York City in 20s and 30s. same thing with Primo Carnera - with the Sardi's category, you find out he wasn't just a boxer, he was a celebrity. there's a difference. Mordaunt Hall is another one - a movie critic but with the info about Sardi's you understand how he fit. in none of those articles is the fact that they posed at Sardi's mentioned. However the addition of the category does in fact define them all and present a fuller and more accurate picture of who they are/were. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's a "somebody" in NY in the 20s and 30s, his accomplishments or exploits in NY during that period should be described, and there must be information about it somewhere that should be cited in his article. It can't be that the only evidence that he was notable in NYC in that period is the fact that the caricature hangs at Sardi's. Categories shouldn't drive article notability; content of the article should. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we disagree about categories, these specific examples are helpful. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree, because there are plenty of people in this category who are not "B-movie" -- Albert Finney, Dick Cavett, Johnny Carson, Walter Cronkite, Tallulah Bankhead, Carol Burnett, John Steinbeck, Gore Vidal -- and who I do not think are reasonably defined by being subjects of portraiture. It's hard to say that John Steinbeck, for instance, is "defined" by having visiting Sardi's and having a caricature drawn there. Caricaturing a diverse set of people may define Sardi's, and that may help articulate the character of the neighborhood, but it doesn't "define" the people who were caricatured. If you inserted this information in any of those biographies, it would be considered trivia and usually deleted -- even for Alan Dinehart. If it's trivia for a biography, then it's certainly not "defining". You say that "with the information about Sardi's you understand how Mordaunt Hall fit." If that's true, then you need to include information about Sardi's in the Mordaunt Hall biography; at least a link to the list. The category doesn't provide any "information about Sardi's" in the article, or context; it's not even referenced or supported currently. How can the reader know whether Hall was a regular or just dropped by one time or whether they caricature celebrities they like whether they ever came by or not? --Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article in Playbill giving a description of the type of events Sardi's sometimes stages for the unveiling on a caricature. Wikipedia often looks to the past rather than the future, leading to such oddities as a demand for a printed reference to things that only exist on the Internet and have no printed sources. Something that is an Internet innovation, such as lifecasters, can lead to arguments by people who "never heard of it" (even though the concept has been in existence for at least eight years). Notice that a picture of the Jerry Lewis star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is on the Jerry Lewis page. What if someone makes it a project to get every star on the Walk as an image on the corresponding Wikipedia page? Similarly, one might speculate that every existing caricature in Sardi's could someday be on Wikipedia, and Sardi's could unveil each new caricature in an Internet ceremony. Oddly, as it stands now, only one of the three Sardi's caricaturists has a page on Wikipedia, and that page consists of only two sentences. Apart from the book I mentioned uptopic, it's actually difficult to see the Sardi's caricatures. And if one walks into Sardi's, one could leave with only a handful of names, compared to Wikipedia which is capable of displaying full details of a performer and then link that page to a category page showing ALL names. Pepso2 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list which already exists will do what you suggest just fine, and it can include references to the book, dates, and names of caricaturists. Please read WP:CLS, if you haven't, to get a sense of the things that categories are useful for, and how lists/articles are different and useful. I will be delighted to help improve these articles and lists, because I agree with everything you've said about notability -- it's just that these are all arguments to preserve an article, and don't address the specific issues of categories. (Posting Sardi's caricatures on the relevant article would be delightful but probably pose significant copyright issues.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let me come at this another way. Can you please explain why it is harmful to keep this category? I contend that it would absolutely diminish certain articles to remove the Sardi’s caricature subjects category, and I think that is an important enough reason to keep it. Can you help me to understand how keeping the category will detract from Wikipedia? We’re not talking about a category of "Red headed actresses from Montana with four or more siblings" or "Christian conservative who keep pet rabbits"; or even American Skeptics which exists in spite of the fact that it's unverifiable (Johnny Carson?). We’re talking about a specific and particular group of celebrities that share a specific and particular notability. In a website that has an article devoted to Famous for being famous and a category for Defunct department stores of the United States certainly there's room for a category that classifies a specific group of famous people that spans 80 years of American culture. It’s not doing any harm. On the contrary it enhances many, many articles about early and mid-20th century cultural icons in many different fields - film, theater, politics, publishing, music, sports, etc - many of whom are virtually forgotten today. Removing the category will create a less complete portrait of many of those who are included, and I think that flies in the face of what we're all trying to do here. J. Van Meter (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three responses: One, read the first paragraph of WP:OCAT for an explanation of why, generally, we don't have categories for everything. Two, read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a discussion of why "it's not doing any harm" is not a helpful argument. Third, I urge you, if you are interested in "creating a complete portrait" of people, to do so by adding text in the articles -- which is what most people, by far, actually see and use. More links to the List of caricatures at Sardi's restaurant will accomplish all the laudable purposes you describe. --Lquilter (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Already exists as List of caricatures at Sardi's restaurant, which is sufficient. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's the kind of category that lists a fact that is either not mentioned in the article (see e.g. Harry Hershfield), or only in passing. It is not important for the persons categorized, and is better of as a list if it is considered of some importance at all. Fram (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A. not true in all cases (e.g. Ted Healy); B. I'm getting to it (e.g Yvonne Arnaud, Bob Saget) C. It's a very big job - lots of referencing, linking, etc. The creation of the category is a step in a process to enhance a large number of under-developed articles. It is my hope that once the category appears on the article pages, I'll get some help from the creators of those pages to add the details. Honestly, I don't understand the vehemence with which you are all going after this category. I've not proposed Category:Nosepickers, or Category:Guys who prefer boxers to briefs. This is a notable, noteworthy, and completely verifiable categorization. The proposal here to shoot it down before it's even out of the gate seems unreasonable. And, the admission by the original nominator that she won't go after the Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame (a category comparable to this one) just because "those fans are too argumentative" also shows a bias here against New York City history and Broadway Theater history which really isn't fair. J. Van Meter (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) No, it doesn't show a bias against NYC history; it shows that I have had my fill this week of trying to explain general category principles to people with particular pet projects. (2) You've had plenty of references to WP:CAT, WP:OCAT, and the like, so I'm not sure why you persist in talking about "notable, noteworthy, and completely verifiable" when you must, by now, recognize that those are criteria for articles not categories. (3) For your article improvement purposes, the list will work just fine. --Lquilter (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as categorization by trivial and non-defining trait; by this sort of categorization, we'd have people filed under every photographer the had posed for. The list article meets all the needs expressed. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some general comments on this debate: I've been trying to parse the extreme differences in outlook here, between my own point of view on categories and their usefulness in general, and the small cabal into whom I've wandered of those here concerned with the worry of overcategorization. I wonder how many of you actually USE Wikipedia on a regular basis for research - as opposed, that is, to primarily handling maintenance pursuits. I DO use wikipedia and I can tell you that the Wikipedia categories are without doubt the most useful things going – and completely unique to this site. In no other source are articles grouped so well by commonalities. Going through the categories is the easiest and quickest way to search for and find overlapping people/ articles.

Take the Rita Hayworth horse owner example from above. Say I want to find celebrity horse breeders, and I know that Rita Hayworth owned horses. One click on that category in her article, and I have the entire category of horse owners at my fingertips. I can see immediately that Jack Klugman owned horses, and so did Desi Arnaz and Peter Lurie and Tim Conway. How else would I find that information? Typing in “race horse owners” turns up nothing. You’re all advocating for lists rather than categories. Is there a LIST of race horse owners? If so, how do I find it. Typing in "List of race horse owners" gets zero hits. There’s no “See also” section of the Rita Hayworth article about horses. Clicking on the horse link within the Hayworth article gets me to another article on thoroughbred horse racing – but there's still no mention of horse owners there either. How, but for clicking on the category link of a known subject, would I ever find other similiar subjects? Without a catergory -that many of you would consider non-defining of Rita Hayworth, I never would.

So, rather than listing many categories, do you envision large “See also” sections in every article? See also: "List of only children" See also: "List of Scottish Americans" See also: "People from South Dakota" ---- all the conceivably (according to who you might ask) non-defining characteristics, that can be concisely found in the categories section of every article, but that would become lost in the shuffle of a densely packed article and would probably raise the ire of other editors who have even other outlooks about the entire concept of "See Also".

The people patrolling here seem very much against too many categories per article, and yes, I absolutely do see your concerns -- to a point. But your repeated fall back position of "create a list instead" is just not an ideal solution. Therefore, I really think you need to re-think your non-defining conerns and your overcategorization concerns because you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In your sincere and I believe good faith efforts to 'clean up', in fact what you're doing is eliminating one of the best and most easily search-able features of Wikipedia. J. Van Meter (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a member of the now-exposed WP:CABAL, I vote to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's overcategorization, non-defining for the subjects, and a list is sufficient. Snocrates 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the commonalities. It is much easier to use a category list than a "see also." If one sees Albert Finney had a caricature, there's a temptation to cllck on Peggy Fears just to see who she was. I don't get the hyperlink yearnings like that in "see also." Pepso2 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Pepso2's remark above, according to WP:CG: 1. Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. Category:Sardi's caricature subjects enables users to find and browse similar articles. J. Van Meter (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To User:Lquilter: Listen, please be aware that, truly, no offense was meant by my reference to the very long list of user categories on your adminpage. I really WAS trying to make a joke in light of the back and forth that we’ve been though here regarding the concept of a defining category. But the fact is, your user page is a perfect example of the exact point I was trying to make: Some people that know you might not think of you as a person that likes fall. And yet, you felt it defining enough to include in a list about yourself. I know someone with MS. If I were putting her into categories, that would be one I'd put her in. And yet, if SHE were asked to put herself into categories, I’d be willing to bet that “person with MS" wouldn’t come up. My point is that defining vs. trivial categories is, in fact, a highly, highly subjective concept. And in terms of the Sardi’s drawings, for many, many people in the theater business, having their portrait unveiled at Sardi's IS a defining moment in their career. I guess you’ll just have to take my word for that. The actress Pert Kelton, for example, signed her picture “Only someone who's been around as long as I have can appreciate this. ” You can bet that she thought of herself as "a Sardi's caricature subject" -while, you’re right, maybe John Steinbeck didn’t. I might think that Billy Joel should be in the category of singers. He might think he should be in a category for "alcoholics". My main objection here to your rush to delete this category is that "non-defining" really is a "depends on who you ask"- concept. And all I am trying to explain here is that in the theater world, this category is a defining one - just like Hollywood Walk of Fame IS a defining concept to a movie actor. It might not be how YOU define a particular person, in the same way that some people might not define you as (or even mention you as) a person who tends to have cat hair on their clothing! But the fact that you bring up cat hair about yourself at all belies that it is something that you in fact think about yourself. And if/when you have your caricature drawn at Sardi's I bet you'd put that on your user page too ! In all seriousness, there is a major historic importance and relevance to this category (and HWoF) - and that's the only reason I've been lobbying to preserve it. Just wanted you to be aware of that fact. Thanks. J. Van Meter (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended (well, I was a little, because it felt very personal to make a point out of my personal identity and not my actions) but I really think that your concerns are much broader than this category and are basically issues with WP:OCAT. I suggest you pipe in at Wikipedia talk:OCAT -- I'm sure there are others who have your view of the matter. (And I think we should keep the Admin discussion there and not here.) --Lquilter (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize that most of the people who cast a delete vote here are long gone and that I'm typing to the wilderness. But for the sake of consistently applying the same criteria to all nominated categories, I really need to point out that: this category is NOT a case of over-categorization as it is defined. The argument over the "Actors who died in their 20s" category, for example, is also being based on the over-categorizatin concept. Fair-enough. There is an overlap in that case - of age and occupation. But that argument doesn't apply here. I have created one category with a single defining characteristic. I didn't propose multiple groupings: actor-caricature subjects, band leader-caricatures subjects, publisher-caricature subjects - THAT would be an ovrecategorization. This category is only about ONE THING. There is absolutely no way that it should be deleted on the grounds of overcategorization. J. Van Meter (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization is not only about triple or multiple intersections. --Lquilter (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that a category has various automatic functions, whereas one must seek out a list. List of TV Guide covers is only partially filled in and if one didn't go to the TV Guide page and look at the bottom, one might never know this list exists. Once again, I want to point out the value of having a Sardi's caricature category now to prepare for a possible future in which Wikipedia and Sardi's make a deal to display the caricatures online. Pepso2 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this example. First of all, there are multiple links to List of TV Guide covers throughout the TV Guide page. Second, it's actually more difficult to seek out a list than a category, since categories don't easily come up in the search results. If a user types "Sardi's caricatures" in the search box -- the way most people find things -- it comes up with the list and the article, not the category. --Lquilter (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>>throughout the TV Guide page<<... Yes, that's one page. But if hundreds of theater people had a Category link to Sardi's caricatures at bottom of their pages, one could easily use it to click on other names and explore other links. I just discovered the List of TV Guide covers accidentally a few hours ago. Previously, after five years on Wikipedia, I was unaware of that list. I view lists and categories as being very very different. Pepso2 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this argument applies to anything. In effect, this is using categories as tags. Categories are not tags. Tagging systems, like Flickr, are built to allow people to apply as many tags as they want, and for tags to be searched on. Wikipedia's categories work differently, and one of the limitations is that usability of them is significantly hampered by having too many. Thus, to limit the overall numbers of categories ("overcategorization"), we limit the types of categories. One of the limitations is that we look for categories to be applied only if they are "defining". People are as a general rule defined by their occupations, their accomplishments, and so on. We have a few other categories for people -- birth & death -- that act more as database fields. But we do not categorize on every true fact -- birth, death & nationality are basic biographical facts that are generally considered defining in their own ways. Fictional and artistic portrayals are interesting and, if significant, should be included in the article about the person. But that is not the criteria for categories. --Lquilter (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one asks, "What is the restaurant with the caricatures?" many people would respond: "Sardi's" ... because that is more defining for Sardi's than the food. Pepso2 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, it is defining for Sardi's. But this is a category for people whose caricatures hang at Sardi's. If someone said "tell me something 'defining' about Oscar Hammerstein II", that he has a caricature at Sardi's wouldn't be anywhere in the top 10 or 20. --Lquilter (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge to Category:Ghanaian people. Wasn't empty when closed. Kbdank71 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ghana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, already covered by Category:Ghanaian people. hateless 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, should it not be a speedy delete? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately, speedy requires 4 days of emptiness and this is brand new. IAR candidate... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in case anyone adds something before this closes. A redirect seems reasonable too. LeSnail (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, just in case. A redirect might be a good idea. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it is still empty. Category:Ghanaian people is consistent with the other sub-cats of Category:People_by_nationality. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (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 discussion was relisted on jan 28. Kbdank71 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:California people by county to People by county in California
• Category:People from Michigan by county to People by county in Michigan
• Category:People by county of New Jersey to People by county in New Jersey
• Category:People from Pennsylvania by county to People by county in Pennsylvania
• Category:Virginia people by county to People by county in Virginia
• Category:Washington people by county to People by county in Washington

Nominator's rationale: The above should be renamed for consistency with the rest of the subcategories in Category:American people by county. Tom (talk - email) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename these to 'People from [state] by county' and do the same with all other subcats of Category:American people by county to following the naming pattern that exists in the subcats of Category:American people by state - Hmains (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hmains. This seems to be the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (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 discussion was relisted on jan 28. Kbdank71 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High schools in Wilmington, Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:High schools in Delaware is sufficient to categorize. Wilmington is a nebulous geographical distinction which does not fit many of these schools, and includes other that have a different postal address. If any sub-categorization is needed, it should probably be by county, not by city. HokieRNB (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly enough articles in this category to justify one. No compelling reason provided to delete it. And rename was not even being discussed. Hmains (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as stated in the nomination, many of the schools should be removed from this category as they are not within Wilmington city limits. Should be renamed to Category:High schools in New Castle County, Delaware if sub-categorization is desired. HokieRNB (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being in the city limits may not be an issue. If they are part of a metropolitan area then being in a category like this may not be a problem. Is it illogical for this category to include its metropolitan area? The lack of an introduction does not help. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The "metropolitan area" of Wilmington is New Castle County. The person who created and populated this category included only the schools that have the postal designation of "Wilmington, DE", leaving out schools that are actually much more closely tied to the city of Wilmington, such as A.I. DuPont High School (in the incorporated Greenville, DE) and even Wilmington Christian School, which has a postal address of Hockessin, DE. Even the city of Newark could be considered a part of metropolitan Wilmington. HokieRNB (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2008 (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 discussion was relisted on jan 28. Kbdank71 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Female activists to Category:Women activists

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent Category:Women and subcategories Category:Indian women activists and Category:Iranian women activists. If people think it is better to have the subcats moved to "female," I am fine with that too. There isn't a lot of consistency in Category:Women by occupation, but "women" outnumbers "female." I'd just like to make this be a little more systematic. No opinion on which is the better word. LeSnail (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAT by sex + avocation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlos as overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Integral part of category tree. Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English expatriate footballers to Category:British expatriate footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. 'British footballers' is not a term we use on WP, because there is no British national team. However, I think this is an exception: a English player playing in Scotland can't really be considered an expatriate, particularly as the issue is complicated by the Welsh clubs playing in the English league etc. Relatively few British players actually play abroad, and I think listing only these would make the category worthwhile. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Although I agree with the fact that an English player playing in Scotland cannot be considered an expatriate, I feel that British players should continue to be categorised by which country of the United Kingdom they play for. Therefore, I believe a better course of action would be to restrict inclusion criteria to English players playing outside the United Kingdom, which would make a lot more sense in my opinion. – PeeJay 01:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In terms of football, it is a international transfer already, play for a club registered in another FA. Matthew_hk tc 16:41, 23 January 2008 (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 discussion was keep, per condition that it is restricted per discussion to subcats and list articles. Kbdank71 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional females (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as excessively broad category (so to speak). Female characters are common in fiction. edg ☺ ☭ 13:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and what a pathetic 6 they are!! Changed to keep subject to conditions as below if "restricted to lists and subcategories using one of those parent-cat-only templates" per Lq. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Otto4711 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or re-list. Since the above comments were left, I have added 2 relevant sub-categories (nuns, lesbians) and 2 lists, including Bond girls who are notable for being fictional females. (I was also going to add category:Fictional nannies, but that currently includes two males and I didn't know enough about the characters to remove them.) - Fayenatic (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Still not clear how this category is useful. Fictional nuns and fictional lesbians don't have a lot in common. If I was reading a page about a fictional lesbian, how likely would I be to want to navigate to the pages of some fictional nuns or a bond girl? Not very, I don't think. LeSnail (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only added those as a demonstration that there were already some lists and sub-cats that are otherwise unconnected. I've added another list (stock characters) and another sub-category. However, I acknowledge that this category would not be very useful if populated with all female character articles. What do you think about a new Category:Lists of fictional female characters? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Fayenatic's efforts are winning me round. I might change to support if the category were restricted to articles on types etc, sub-cats and lists, and adding individual FFs banned. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If this category were restricted to lists and subcategories using one of those parent-cat-only templates I think it would be fine. --Lquilter (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and changed above, but I think individual "type" articles like heroine, Bond girl etc are ok too - just none on individual characters. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not enough articles GLGermann (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - (I take it this is a delete proposal.) The category includes 3 articles -- Salon.com, The K Chronicles (a syndicated cartoon), and Scott Rosenberg (journalist), someone who writes for Salon.com. It's overcategorization to categorize people by their employers. The K Chronicles can be, and is, easily listed in Salon.com, and it's overcategorization to include a syndicated comic in the newspaper categories that subscribe to it, anyway. (Salon.com is probably the major subscriber and may even be where it got started, if I recall correctly, but it's still a bad idea to categorize "X by relationship with Y" and will lead to massive category clutter.) All 3 of the articles are well-categorized without the Salon.com category, and none of its parent categories need it to clean them up.
• Delete per the above unsigned comment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was speedy delete, empty + author request (no point in transferring to WP:UCFD in the circumstances). Bencherlite^Talk 07:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in The Freecycle Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by Category:Wikipedians who support regiving Ashley VH (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CSIR to Category:Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and per main article Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Snocrates 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to expand acronym, per convention. Maralia (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand abbreviation per nom. I'm not convinced that this and similar umbrella organizations need eponymous cats, but if they exist, they should be spelled out. --Lquilter (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DRDO to Category:Defence Research and Development Organisation

Category:DRDO Laboratories to Category:Defence Research and Development Organisation laboratories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per Wp:NCCAT and per main article Defence Research and Development Organisation. Snocrates 01:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the categories, I have no problems with this, as long as Category:DRDO and Category:DRDO laboratories redirects to the new link. My main concern with this is that DRDO is probably more well known and used much more than the full name. However, as per nom, I think its ok, so you have my support. Sniperz11^talk|edits 05:15, 21 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete both. Kbdank71 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination does not involve Category:Federalist Papers by James Madison.

Category:Works by heads of state or government

Category:Books by heads of state or government

These seem to be clearly Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial_intersection. Consider the works of fiction by Newt Gingrich for example. While it may be useful to make a list of such publications (especially those which may be relevant to politics or political issues), a general category with merely the inclusion criteria that some "important" political person wrote it doesn't seem like a good idea. The parent category in particular should be deleted. Will we need to categrise the sculptures, paintings, and so on of such people as politicians (rather than as artists).- jc37 00:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Works by heads of state or government and Listify Category:Books by heads of state or government to List of works by heads of state or government - and cleanup. (This list probably also needs to be renamed to literary works, per the page's introductory sentence.) - jc37 00:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This lengthy second bite is in fact by the nominator. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as the list is hugely more complete, & the intersection dubious. Although the list in fact seems to consist entirely of written works, with the paintings of both Hitler & Winston Churchill absent, the name should be kept general in case this changes. The works by John Buchan don't belong, as he was neither head of state nor of government. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Mussolini write some torrid adventure novel? --Lquilter (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both unless restricted in some fashion to works as HOS. --Lquilter (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as odd intersection of things by oddity of author, apparently not just "as" HOS as per Lquilter but not even "while" HOS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Granada province to Category:Granada (province)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the article, which is at Granada (province). Grutness...wha? 00:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (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.