< March 3 March 5 >

March 4

Category:Cultural Heritage

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Cultural Sites on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List. Kbdank71 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Cultural Heritage to Category:Cultural heritage
Nominator's rationale: I created this category as a procedural device in order to list it for merging. An editor has been busily filling the category (prior to its existence) with 97 (and counting) articles. But it is not clear which cultural heritage is being categorised. I believe that it should be merged with intelligence into either Category:Cultural heritage or some of its many sub-categories. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as far as I can determine, and I have not checked more than a handful, these are all to do with UNESCO sites. There are clues on the editor's talk page. A little guidance is in order by a kind passer by. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
, Great - the text may be Public domain, I'm not sure, but it should be made clearer in the text if it is being quoted directly. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yocep's Pics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yocep's Pics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. User:Yocep has created this category to hold the images that he has created/uploaded. I don't think we categorize images in this way—the user can create a list on in his own userspace if he wants to group these or track them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Baptist ministers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American Baptist ministers to Category:Baptist ministers from the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous since "American Baptist" can mean member of the American Baptist denomination or even a member of the American Baptist Association. But not all Baptist ministers of American nationality are members of that denomination or association. To get around this problem, the category for Baptists of American nationality is at Category:Baptists from the United States. I suggest renaming this subcategory to match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be quite happy to endorse Category:American ministers of Baptist churches and Category:American members of Baptist churches. Occuli (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DEA Chief of Public Affairs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DEA Chief of Public Affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Intrinsically single-member category, not needed. Abd (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept or not, expanding all the DEA abbreviations is in order, see Note below, and see Category:Drug Enforcement Administration I also moved the cat in the article to the Administrators category, imagining that this category would refer to any administrator there, but apparently that category is for the Directors of the agency. That category might be misnamed. I reverted myself.--Abd (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, it wasn't. I concluded that the category was useless in the article, so I removed it from the article. Then I CfD'd the category. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For practical purposes it amounts to the same thing. Nominate it then empty—empty then nominate: the same situation results. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then if I want to remove a category from an article, how long must we wait before nominating the now-empty category? If my removal was improper, someone could put it back, except that we have consensus that there are two more-useful categories (and what was done, in fact, was to edit the article to the better category, and probably it should have both). If my nomination was improper, why? And why, if I've determined that the needs of our readers suggest that a category not be listed in an article (in this case, it provides the reader who follows it nothing that the reader didn't already have from the article), should I then refrain from nominating the category after removal? Content is king, here, and suggesting that the removal was improper is placing a possible technicality of CfD process above improvements to content. Wrong approach, which is why I've taken the trouble to discuss this. It's moot here, but the problematic approach might make a difference someday. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ESPN Star Sports Commentrators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ESPN Star Sports Commentrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per extensive precedent and consensus against categorizing sportscasters and other performers by media outlet. Was tagged for speedy because of capitalization and spelling error, but is not eligible for speedy per criterion 2. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Airports

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming Category:Airports in Chicago to Category:Airports in Chicago, Illinois Category:Airports in the Chicago metropolitan area
Suggest renaming Category:Airports in Dallas to Category:Airports in Dallas, Texas
Suggest renaming Category:Airports in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Airports in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas Category:Airports in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Suggest renaming Category:Airports in Fort Worth to Category:Airports in Fort Worth, Texas
Suggest renaming Category:Airports of Los Angeles, California to Category:Airports in Greater Los Angeles
Suggest renaming Category:Airports of the London region to Category:Airports in the London region
Suggest renaming Category:Airports of the Paris region to Category:Airports in the Paris region
Suggest renaming Category:Airports of Stockholm to Category:Airports in the Stockholm region
Nominator's rationale: Two things here: Adding states as per many other such nominations, and converting "of" to "in" as appropriate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More attractions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming Category:Arts in Louisville to Category:Arts in Louisville, Kentucky
Suggest renaming Category:Louisville arts groups to Category:Arts groups in Louisville, KentuckyCategory:Arts organizations in Louisville, Kentucky
Suggest renaming Category:Louisville arts events to Category:Arts events in Louisville, KentuckyCategory:Festivals in Louisville, Kentucky
Suggest renaming Category:Festivals and Events of Cumberland, MD-WV-PA to Category:Festivals in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA
Suggest renaming Category:Festivals in Chicago to Category:Festivals in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Festivals in Cincinnati to Category:Festivals in Cincinnati, Ohio
Suggest renaming Category:Festivals in Seattle to Category:Festivals in Seattle, Washington
Suggest renaming Category:Hotels in Chicago to Category:Hotels in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Hotels in Laughlin to Category:Hotels in Laughlin, Nevada
Suggest renaming Category:Hotels in Memphis to Category:Hotels in Memphis, Tennessee
Suggest renaming Category:Hotels in Miami to Category:Hotels in Miami, Florida
Suggest renaming Category:Hotels in Miami Beach to Category:Hotels in Miami Beach, Florida
Suggest renaming Category:Hotels in Omaha to Category:Hotels in Omaha, Nebraska
Suggest renaming Category:Hotels in Primm to Category:Hotels in Primm, Nevada
Suggest renaming Category:Museums in San Francisco to Category:Museums in San Francisco, California
Suggest renaming Category:Music venues in Chicago to Category:Music venues in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Music venues in Philadelphia to Category:Music venues in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Suggest renaming Category:Music venues in Pittsburgh to Category:Music venues in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Suggest renaming Category:Music venues in Rosemont to Category:Music venues in Rosemont, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Nightclubs in Chicago to Category:Nightclubs in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Outdoor sculptures in Chicago to Category:Outdoor sculptures in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Outdoor sculptures in Seattle to Category:Outdoor sculptures in Seattle, Washington
Suggest renaming Category:Parks in Chicago to Category:Parks in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Parks in Cincinnati to Category:Parks in Cincinnati, Ohio
Suggest renaming Category:Parks in Lexington to Category:Parks in Lexington, Kentucky
Suggest renaming Category:Parks in Louisville to Category:Parks in Louisville, Kentucky
Suggest renaming Category:Parks in Minneapolis to Category:Parks in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Suggest renaming Category:Parks located in Cumberland, MD-WV to Category:Parks in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA
Suggest renaming Category:Performing arts in Pittsburgh to Category:Performing arts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Suggest renaming Category:Places of worship in Chicago to Category:Places of worship in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Places of worship in Omaha to Category:Places of worship in Omaha, Nebraska
Suggest renaming Category:Places of worship in Minneapolis to Category:Places of worship in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Suggest renaming Category:Religious structures in Baltimore to Category:Places of worship in Baltimore, Maryland
Suggest renaming Category:Synagogues in Chicago to Category:Synagogues in Chicago, Illinois
Suggest renaming Category:Synagogues in Louisville to Category:Synagogues in Louisville, Kentucky
Suggest renaming Category:Tourism in Chicago to Category:Tourism in Chicago, Illinois
Nominator's rationale: More of the kind from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_26#Attractions, which passed. I've left out any from New York or Las Vegas, as those are somewhat murky. The Louisville and Pittsburgh parks categories are for the metro area, so I'd recommend changing them and then moving some of their contents into a greater area category. All other categories appear to be entirely inside the city limits. The "Religious structures" one is the only category of its kind, and is inside the Places of worship tree, so I'm suggesting renaming that to the more common structure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shane Warne

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Since I am sure this will make some users respond to this decision with a "Wha...?", I will state right up front that this was not decided through counting votes, but through the strength of the arguments presented. (If it was pure vote counting this would be a "no consensus" or a "keep".) For those who were in favour of keeping, we had the following arguments (or variations thereof) presented: (1k) he is the best known cricketer ever, exceedingly notable, etc.; (2k) more articles could or will be created that could be added to the category; (3k) its existence doesn't hurt anything; (4k) it's useful. For the deletion side, we had the following arguments (or variations thereof) presented: (1d) it is an eponymous category; (2d) it is a small category and it is unlikely that more articles will be added to it; (3d) the article Shane Warne serves as an appropriate navigational hub for all of the material. My assessment of the "keep" arguments: (1k) is irrelevant. Notability is the test for articles, not for categories, and no one "deserves" a category because of his notability. (2k) is possible, but not inevitable. (3k) is largely irrelevant: WP:NOHARM. (4k) is largely irrelevant: WP:ITSUSEFUL. My assessment of the "delete" arguments: (1d) is supported by WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS, which in a general way discourages against the creation of eponymous categories, while acknowledging that they can occasionally be appropriate. (2d) is possible, but not inevitable. (3d) is a valid point: the 3 articles in the category are all linked in the text of Shane Warne, and each article contains in its text a link back to Shane Warne. Considering all of these, the issues of 2k and 2d are discussed in WP:OCAT#SMALL and the differing opinions on that guideline as applied here essentially cancel each other out: the additions could happen, but it's also possible that they may not. Without anything solid to go by, we have to just accept the status quo situation and not try to anticipate what will happen: it is currently a relatively small category. In the end, we are left with no good arguments for keeping (1k, 3k, 4k), but some decent ones for deletion (1d, 3d). User:Stephen Turner may have hit the nail on the head with his comment: this category should be deleted now in its current state; that's not to say it could never be appropriate or necessary, but that time is not now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shane Warne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category with little or no immediate likelihood of expansion. Main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no, actually the rationale for deletion is not in any way like WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I guess that's an easy (if lame-ass) way of trying to rebut the nomination. Where is this room for expansion? He's retired from the sport, articles about seasons or teams or tests or whatever don't get categorized by those who participate in them, it's unlikely that his books are independently notable (and even if they were they wouldn't be categorized under his name but in a "Books by..." category). How well-known he is as a cricketer (or anything else) has bugger-all to do with whether there is now or is likely to be sufficient material to support a category or whether or not his own article links these whopping three additional articles together. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOHARM is not a legitimate argument for retention. The reasons for deletion are WP:OC#SMALL, which states Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, which states In general, avoid creating categories named after individual people, or groupings of people (such as families or musical groups). Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question. There is no still no indication of possible expansion for this category, nor do the exceptions to the eponymous categorization guideline apply here. Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, where is the possible or likely expansion? Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Miller articles were there in July, 6 months before the Invincibles deletions. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be part of WP:OC#EPONYMOUS not added (or ever cited) by the nom, unlike this bit. Occuli (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And...one more time, where is the likely expansion of this category? All very well and good to go "oh, I just know there's more to say about this guy because he's just so very notable" (notability not having anything at all to do with categorization) yet apparently it's not so easy to offer even a single example of where the category is likely to expand. The idea that this is a "collection of subarticles" along the lines of the examples offered (Category:William Shakespeare or Category:Alexander the Great) is ludicrous on its face. Oh, and Occuli? The current revision of OC#EPONYMOUS, quoted above, includes both families and musical groups so pulling out that old diff is supposed to illustrate what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not the standard for categorization, otherwise every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own category. You've been around these parts more than long enough to know that. Since we do not categorize sporting events on the basis of who participates in them, neither his supposed Ashes commentary nor his rumored return are relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dale Earnhardt

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dale Earnhardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category with little immediate likelihood of expansion. Subject article serves to link the material. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wasit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wasit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Completely redundant with Category:Wasit Governorate. All articles already filed under latter category. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now you've got everybody totally confused. Wasit, or Wasit not? Cgingold (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename/merge both to Category:Federally recognized tribes in the United States. Kbdank71 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States to Category:US Federally recognized tribes
Nominator's rationale: Exact same concept. MBisanz talk 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "United States" should be the tip-off. The US federal government doesn't recognize tribes residing in other countries, since they would be out of their jurisdiction. Conversely "Native American" most often means indigenous peoples of the Americas, North and South. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television shows by language

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Television programming by language to avoid US/UK issues and to match parent. Kbdank71 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television shows by language to Category:Television programs by language
Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it uniform with Category:Television programs by location, Category:Television programs by source, and Category:Television programs by type (see parent category). ~EdGl (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sub-cats then? Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, true, and the "...by location" category has the same problem. What should be done, then? ~EdGl (talk)
  • Comment which is why I used show in the first place. I thought it was neutral sounding. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Information Technology companies of Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Information Technology companies of Australia to Category:Information technology companies of Australia
Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention, see Category:Information technology companies by country. ~EdGl (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with multiple occupations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with multiple occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as per below nominations Mayumashu (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Schools in Seattle

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Schools in Seattle to Category:Schools in Seattle, Washington
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main parent category: Category:Seattle, Washington. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Congressional opponents of...

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify and delete. Kbdank71 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Congressional opponents of the Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Congressional opponents of the Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - clear-cut overcategorization based on opinion or issue. These are particularly egregious categories, as opinions about an extended conflict like the Vietnam War or Iraq War/Occupation are highly mutable. Read the inclusion criterion for the Iraq War category for an outstanding example of why this sort of categorization scheme is unworkable. Otto4711 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the course of their careers, politicians take stands for and against and actively work to start and end many actions, policies, and practices. While the Iraq and Vietnam Wars are significant events, I think the relevant question is whether a congressperson's stance on these two particular wars, as opposed to any number of other things, is sufficiently defining to merit a category. Perhaps the precedent of the CFD for opponents and proponents of Alaska statehood, where the result was "listify", could be applied. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at just one example, of a member of Congress who is not included in the category: Hilary Rodham Clinton. She voted in favor of the initial Iraq War resolution, then voted in opposition to the surge, voted in favor of a funding bill that required withdrawal, slammed Petraeus's report to Congress on the war, sponsored legislation to withdraw troops and during the presidential campaign vowed to end the war as President. Yet she is not considered a "Congressional opponent of the Iraq War"? Deciding who goes into this category and who doesn't is completely arbitrary as there is no standard for determining what level of opposition is required to qualify one as an opponent. What if a Senator was personally deeply opposed to war in Iraq but felt that it was important to support the foreign policy position of the President? What if Congressman Smith voted against one or more Vietnam War-related bills as a quid pro quo to get Congressman Jones's vote on one of Smith's pet pork projects? The motives behind congressional votes are often far from clear-cut to an outside observer. Further, maintaining this category sets a terrible precedent for categorizing Congresspeople on every political issue that comes before them, on both sides. Category: Congressional opponents of same-sex marriage, Category:Congressional supporters of stem cell research, Category:Senators who voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States, Category:Members of Congress who want to abolish the Department of Education, Category:Members of Congress who generally support the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but who don't like the idea of partial-birth abortion and so voted to ban it and on and on it would go. Congresspeople could end up with dozens or hundreds of categories and, since over the course of a career politicians change their opinions on issues for any number of reasons from sincere political conviction to the direction of the wind in their home district, they will inevitably end up with categories in direct opposition to one another. The category system is simply not designed to capture this sort of information. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is remotely suggesting that Congresspeople be categorized merely on the basis of their positions on a laundry list of issues. What sets these categories apart is that taking a clear stand against the Vietnam or Iraq War in the face of the full weight of "patriotic" sentiment and official pronoucements from the President & his minions meets the standard of being a defining act for members of Congress. Cgingold (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the categories are in no way limited to the timeframe of when one war or the other had the "full weight of 'patriotic' sentiment...". The category description for the Iraq category specifically includes those who were initially in favor of that war and then turned "strongly" against it (oh, how do we gauge what constitutes turning "strongly" away from the war again?) And if that is in fact the measure, then what constitutes that "full weight" of sentiment, and how is whatever standard one could come up with objective? Otto4711 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That through the course of history positions tend to move toward war opposition is debatable (I think you'll find that the United States moved from opposition to support of one or two other wars in the last hundred years) but even if it weren't, the fact that political support and opposition changes is exactly my point, that opinion on these subjects is mutable. WP:CLN does not mandate the existence of both lists and categories; rather, it acknowledges that there are instances in which one form is superior to another. This is an instance where lists would be superior, because support of or opposition to a war is so complex an issue that a bare alphabetical list of names is insufficient to explain how the people included in it supported or opposed the wars. Otto4711 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Codswallop, twaddle, hokum, and malarkey", indeed - love it! (Have you thought of sending some writing samples to the op-ed page of your favorite paper? :) All the same, to say that "In a sense, all politicians were against the war" is to obscure the issue. Those who are rightly included in this category have verifiably declared their opposition in clear terms. John Kerry, for example, did waffle on the war for an extended period of time, before belatedly reversing and declaring that "the war itself was a mistake... and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution." ("Kerry demands US troop pullout", Boston Globe, 6-14-06) Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, never reversed, and it cost her the nomination -- nor have Schumer, Feinstein, or Reid (whom I've removed from the category - he was erroneously added by an anon. IP in January). Cgingold (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one "deserves" a category. Categories are not awards of merit or recognition. Adopting your rationale for keeping the Iraq category is in direct violation of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV as it puts forth the position that a vote against the Iraq War resolution was an expression of "guts" and "moral fiber" and implying that those who voted in favor of the resolution lack guts and moral fiber. Moreover, the category is not limited to people who voted against the resolution, as some in the category (Barack Obama for one) were not in Congress at the time of the vote. Your keep rationale does not address the Vietnam category at all. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is clearly not for Congressional opponents of the October 2002 resolution, considering Barack Obama was not even a member of Congress at the time. Such a category, at least, would be verifiable. But it still would not be particularly informative, given the legislative process. A ban on discrimination against women was inserted into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in an attempt to defeat the bill, so what use would it be simply to group its opponents together? Perhaps some were trying to rescue the bill, perhaps others had no interest in women's equality. That sort of information cannot be captured in a category. -choster (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Congressional activists against the Iraq War
Category:Congressional activists against the Vietnam War
From WP:OC#OPINION: "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists)."
--Timeshifter (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Physician-politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete but hold for 3 days to allow for anyone who wishes to listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Physician-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dentists in the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Physicians in the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection: being a physician and being a politician are unrelated characteristics. Maybe this could work as a list of some sort, but it's definitely not a suitable basis for categorization. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sure - let's tie on Category:Actor-singers like an anchor so it can drag down the other, fundamentally different categories. Nice try, jc! Cgingold (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If listified, how about List of physicians who entered politics to avoid the whole dash issue? Otto4711 (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actor-singers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actor-singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all trivial intersection. catting each for each of the two categories suffices Mayumashu (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sure - let's tie on Category:Actor-singers like an anchor so it can drag down the other, fundamentally different categories. Nice try, jc! Cgingold (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actor-politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete. —Angr 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actor-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as per discussion for recent nomination of similar nature, that is a trivial intersection Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • or indeed an interesting academic study, like "The Politics of Adulation: Cinema and the Production of Politicians in South India" JSTOR, "The Painted Face of Politics: The Actor-Politicians of South India" by Farrukh Dhondy, and others. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is an argument in favor of notability, the standard for an article. Otto4711 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple ways in which being a billionaire businessperson can give a major boost to a career in politics too. Are we categorising by qualities of an individual which contribute to them being a politician? I can think of quite a few more... - jc37 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't thought of that as a possible category, but it's not without merit. Cgingold (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are a couple of pertinent excerpts from my comments in the last CFD:
  • "...these professions are increasingly intertwined (in the U.S. and elsewhere); it's a significant socio-political phenomenon..."
  • "Category:Actor-politicians reflects [among other things] the fact that acting ability is related to success in politics, and visibility/name recognition is related to electoral success."
The point, again, is that it's not, as claimed, a "trivial intersection". Cgingold (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sure - let's tie on Category:Actor-singers like an anchor so it can drag down the other, fundamentally different categories. Nice try, jc! Cgingold (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the Westminster perspective, but as described above the category mostly contains stars from the US, Philipines, India etc, for whom fame as an actor was an essential precondition for a political career. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. "An essential precondition"? Sure, acting fame has launched several notable political careers in those countries, but plenty have made it without being actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, coming from a family in the oligarchy is the other usual way in India & the Philipines. Or crime. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, but for these individuals the acting career was an essential precondition, not an incidental aside. Tvoz/talk 19:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fred Thompson did a bit of acting before running for public office, but I don't think that's what gave him the stature to be elected—he was involved as a lawyer in cases involving the government (Watergate, etc.) long before his acting career and was a lobbyist as well, and he didn't become a "famous" actor until after he was elected to the U.S. Senate. This is much better dealt with by a list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying it is always true, but for Joseph Estrada, N. T. Rama Rao & the 25 other Indian articles in the category it certainly is. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which demonstrates the problem with having a category where there is a large variation in the significance of the intersection. Lots of politicians are notable before they become politicians, and the pre-existing notability may be for a variety of reasons. Should we have categories for all of these situations? Obviously not, but lists work well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More