Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9

< February 8	February 10 >

February 9

Category:International Competitions

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because:

It's mis-capitalized.
The competitions have very little in common, with members ranging from the Olympic Games to the Grand European Jury Wine Tasting of 1997.
It's poorly defined. What is an "international competition"? For example, in the Tour de France, the cyclists ride for their teams, not for their own nations. Many competitions in this category also have this problem as the competitors, while coming from many nations, represent only themselves or a team and not a nation. Chanheigeorge 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So many competitions are "international" competitions in once sense or another that this is not defining. For example, a game between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Detroit Tigers could be considered an international competition just like the Tour de France, the Olympics, or the World Cup. Dr. Submillimeter 08:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. AshbyJnr 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We categorize competitions by sport and then weather or not they are local/international: Category:Sports competitions/Category:Football (soccer) competitions --Cat out 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Resurrection Man villains

Delete, As per precedent, "villain" requires an inherent POV judgment call. J Greb 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and extensive precedent. (edit - forgot to sign) Otto4711 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Resurrection Man enemies". The category is objectively about enemies of Resurrection Man; a rename is all that is needed. Cosmetor 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since characters battle any number of other characters, a separate "enemies" category could be created for each battle. Someone like Doctor Doom could end up with dozens of categories. Otto4711 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Each battle" is a gross exaggeration. If you meant to say "each character", well, we could argue about whether or not Resurrection Man is important enough to deserve a category just for his enemies, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that "villains" is a biased label, and renaming it to "enemies" is a perfectly good solution for that. It even says "enemies" in the actual category. Cosmetor 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Each battle" is an exaggeration only in that battling the same "enemy" twice wouldn't lead to a double entry. It has nothing to do with whether or not Resurrection Man is important enough to have a category for his enemies. It has to do with whether the larger issue of whether the entire scheme of categorizing characters by whose "enemy" they are is reasonable. To expand on my Doctor Doom example, Doom has fought, well, pretty much everyone. He could end up categorized as an "enemy" of the X-men and each individual member at the time of the battles, The Avengers and their individual members, Spider-Man, The Red Skull, Galactus, The Beyonder, Hulk, and on and on and on. And each character that he is an "enemy" of is also an "enemy" of his, so each of their articles could end up with his "enemies" tag on it. He's been involved in cross-company titles, so he could end up on a bunch of DC characters' pages, and he on theirs. We could end up with dozens or even hundreds of categories just to tag characters as one anothers' "enemies. Otto4711 00:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems like you're complaining about importance, based on your complaints about creating new categories. If Doctor Doom (for instance) has been an enemy to dozens of other characters, for instance, then dozens of characters fit into his category of "enemies"; we don't simply ignore categories because they would have many pages in them. Cosmetor 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that starts to get into a usability problem. In theory (sticking with comic book characters for this) each character would have at least 1 "foe/enemy/adversary" category. But that's only for the one-shot characters. There are a large chunk of characters that would have much more than that. That would push some category sections to the point of uselessness. (IIUC this is the foundation of the "category creep" problem. The very argument that prevents some categories, "Actors by film", and forcing POV criteria on others, "Actors by show" but only for a portion of the actors ever involved.) For the "foe/enemy/adversary" cat system to work, limiters need to be applied. Judgment calls as to who deserves to get a cat and who qualifies for inclusion. — J Greb 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Every part of this title requires POV. Not only does the term "villain" require POV, so does the decision that these characters are mainly Resurrection Man's enemies. If you look at the characters' articles, you will see that they generally are not. Doczilla 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There is no "mainly". It refers to enemies of Resurrection Man, regardless of those characters' "main" opponents. I agree with you on the "villains" part, though, which is why I suggest the change to "enemies"
Delete - "Villain" suffers POV problems, and many comic book characters have common adversaries. Dr. Submillimeter 08:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all other such discussions. Lesnail 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would prefer these villain categories to be bulk deleted. --Cat out 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me. I'm working on it. I think with the batch nominated in the last day or so it's the last of them. Otto4711 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nightwing villains

Delete, As per precedent, "villain" requires an inherent POV judgment call. J Greb 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the cat is about a comics. Does the v* word tickle people so much to eradicate it no matter what? Pavel Vozenilek 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Nightwing enemies". The category is objectively about enemies of Nightwing; a rename is all that is needed. Cosmetor 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The was brought up with the recently (re)created Category:Enemies of Batman. LSS, still has POV problems. It also wanders into "unintended consequences" with odd characters getting included. — J Greb 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only your point of view that their inclusion is odd. I might think that including a character as a "fictional murderer" is odd, because I might sympathize with the character, but it's still objectively true. Cosmetor 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately the use of "... enemy/villain" is different from "fictional profession/crime". The later have extremely rigid definitions. The former invariable have qualifiers. It the qualifiers that create the POV situation.
    If the community was willing to put up with the long category lists (consider the rails against "category clutter") and use the least qualified definitions (consider the material up as "overly broad") then I could see an argument for categories like "hero/villain". "enemy", "protagaonist/antagonist", and so on. As it stands the POV invoking qualifiers are not wanted, and the clutter argument is a valid one. — J Greb 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do not group "enemy" together with "villain". "Villain" is subjective; "enemy" is something else entirely. Cosmetor 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and extensive precedent. See specifically Supervillains by adversary. Otto4711 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything I just said about Resurrection Man villains and in dozens of other such CfD discussions. Doczilla 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Villain" suffers POV problems, and many comic book characters have common adversaries. Dr. Submillimeter 08:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would prefer these villain categories to be bulk deleted. --Cat out 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Service company

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

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Service companies; misnamed duplication. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/delete, no question about it. Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per above. David Kernow (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge --Cat out 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mortal Kombat character category

delete and merge to Category:Mortal Kombat characters. per WP:V, WP:POV and WP:OR.--Ommmin 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main/minor distinction is questionable, I agree. However, as far as I can tell most "main" characters are playable in one or more of the games of the series, whereas none of the "minor" characters are. In addition, most of the "minor" characters appear to be characters exclusive to the television series Mortal Kombat: Conquest, and have not appeared or been mentioned in any of the games. If these are distinctions worth making, then perhaps a preferable solution would be to rename the "main" category to something like Category:Playable characters in Mortal Kombat and the "minor" category to Category:Mortal Kombat: Conquest characters (and then put the rest of the articles in the parent category). If not, then merge them all, per Ommmin. -- Supermorff 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The characters listed in the "main characters" category consist of those who are actual playable fighters in the games. The characters in the "minor" category consist of what can be divided into two groups: non-playable characters who are mentioned or have appeared in the games with small roles (Great Kung Lao, One Being, most of this list) and characters who are exclusive to the TV series Mortal Kombat: Conquest (Kiri and Ankha, Kreeya, Omegis, Qali, Reyland family, Siann, Mika and Sora, Siro, Taja, and Vorpax). Initially the "minor characters" category had been populated only by the former. The Conquest characters were included later on. MarphyBlack 11:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The terms "main characters" and "minor characters" appears to be neologisms. Either clearer terms should be used (e.g. "playable characters" and "non-playable characters") or the categories should be upmerged. Dr. Submillimeter 13:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character Combination lists

Category:Lists of two-character combinations

Category:Lists of three-character combinations

Category:Lists of four-character combinations

Category:Lists of five-character combinations

There has been question lately just how useful categorizing character combinations are. For instance, Rim is classed a 3CC despite the fact that some of its meanings are English (rather than acronyms, etc.) while Bar is classed a normal disambig (despite that some of its meanings are acronyms). This is somewhat inconsistent.

The associated templates are up for discussion as well, though that should not impact whether these categories are kept, as these categories can be kept even if the differently worded template is deprecated/deleted. (See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages)#Let's clarify with the various CC templates once and for all)

Personally, I think that the inconsistency should be dealt with. Either all X-letter disambigs should be added to this list (that is, non-article pages of the appropriate length) to enforce consistency, or the category should be deleted. Either is fine with me.

Also, the few entries in these cats that aren't from the XCC cats (and generally listed under space) should probably be upmerged into Category:Lists of abbreviations. SnowFire 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. This is cat-cruftery at its worst. There is no information here that cannot be generated in a purely mechanical way. If anybody truly wanted to find all N-letter combinations, they would do it with little program to generate them all, or maybe even a query against the wiki database filtering on length(title) == 3, or whatever SQL you have to utter to get that. Any given N-letter string can simultaneously be a word, an acronym, an abbreviation, a name, etc. I just can't imagine any plausable scenario where these cats are useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fairness, this is not entirely true, as such a search would miss pages like ABO (disambiguation). SnowFire 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, you're right, it's so much easier to write such a program from scratch than to just look up a topic already prepared. Your logic is not only impeccable, it's universally applicable. Indeed, why not delete all of Wikipedia? There is no information here that cannot be found some other way. If anybody truly wanted to learn about a topic, they could do a Google search, read the Encyclopedia Britannica, or go to the library. -- Ben 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two very different things. Yes, you are right that there is no information in Wikipedia which isn't somewhere else. Or, at least that's the goal, implied by the rules on verifiability. The value added by an encyclopedia is the filtering, summarizing, arranging. These are things which require human intelligence. What's the value add in making a mechanically generated list of every possible N-letter combination? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per RoySmith. -- KelleyCook 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until a bot can change the associated templates to {{disambig}}, only then delete all. There's no hurry. Noclip 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RoySmith.—Ketil Trout 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RoySmith suggests that character combinations can be found in other ways, but this is not a good reason. I don't know how to do the things he suggests. However, letter combinations are not well defined (acronyms versus words), and are still not very useful. -Freekee 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant! The templates are undergoing deletion. If they get deleted, so would these. Else they should stay. --Cat out 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a trifle more accurate to say "The templates are undergoing discussion of their potential deletion." -- Ben 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All: There's a project to replace the various "Lists of Wikipedians who _____" with categories, precisely because the lists tend to fall out of date, while the categories are to some extent self-updating. The same reasoning should apply here. Yet this proposal involves deleting the categories in favor of the lists, adding still more future workload. Why? -- Ben 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the purpose of the categories? Are they used for something? older ≠ wiser 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal isn't to delete the categories in favor of the lists. It's just to delete the categories. The idea that somebody would build lists to replace them was never brought up, and if it were, I would think it absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the common non-Wiki types of FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) files on the Web and Usenet is the "Jargon" file, of which acronyms form a sizable part. People want to know what comments like "HTH" and "TINC" mean. These sets of 3CC, 4CC, etc., are a Wiki way to answer such questions. You and I and others here may not need such explanations; but new Wikipedians and Net-users arrive every day, and at some point will have questions like "This guy referred to "NIT"; is he referring to lice, calling me a nit-picker, or something else?" Soon after that comes "Cool; so what other acronyms are used?" These categories help answer that question. -- Ben 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to know what NIT meant, I would type NIT into the search box. I just can't see anybody then asking, what other acronyms are there?. That's almost like asking, What other words are there? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet somehow dictionaries still keep getting bought. Likewise, acronym lists show up in Frequently-Asked-Questions files. Perhaps other people haven't stopped wanting to learn such things. Neither have I.

Searching for an acronym may show you hundreds of pages where it is used, among which (eventually) you find one where it is defined. But that may not even be the definition that applies, which is why there are disambiguation pages. So the _CC definition/disambiguation pages (and their categories) speed the process of finding the multiple-meaning acronyms.

Honest to goodness, when did "Well, I don't use it!" (though other people do) become a good reason to delete things from Wikipedia? -- Ben 13:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lists of 2CC and 3CC, depopulate them; delete 4CC and 5CC. Keep the lists for 2CC and 3CC but populate only with the 3 lists of 2CC and 15 or so lists of 3CC. These lists have the complete set of 2 and 3 character combinations, including non-existent pages, so these are automatically self-updating: see Wikipedia:List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations and 14 of the 15 lists in Category:Lists of TLAs. I'm not sure what the purpose of Wikipedia:List of TLA disambiguation pages is. - Fayenatic london 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy: a list of every possible single-letter-double-digit combination, whether or not it's ever been used for anything. But if there are several known uses for such a combination, then there may be a "___ (disambiguation)" page for it, which due to the "(disambiguation)" won't show up on that list, and the combination will remain redlinked there. This does not seem to me to be an effective (let alone efficient) solution. -- Ben 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fair enough, but this would still be a fairly small category- why not upmerge those pages into Category:Lists of abbreviations? 2CC especially, since there are only 4 entries. 3CC, I suppose I can see having a category for the 15 entries left there. SnowFire 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or implement Fayenatic's suggestion, since those actually are lists of n-character combinations. -- Natalya 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The length of such a list goes up exponentially, with the value of n being the exponent. All possible two-letter combinations: 26^2 = 676. All possible three-letter combinations: 26^3 = 17,576. All possible four-letter combinations: 26^4 = 456,976. By the time you reach n=5, your list is 11,881,376 entries long, most of which are redlinked, an incredible waste of space that readers would have to plow through. (Now try the letter/number combinations, 36^n.) Yet these still won't show pages like ABO (disambiguation), because they don't allow for the "(disambiguation)". -- Ben 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. >Radiant< 15:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Am I the only one crazy enough to go through 3CC's and systematically clean them up? If you dump them into the parent category, it will make such a task completely impossible. But then you might ask why systematically clean 3CC's up and not general disambigs? It's a slightly more manageable size, and a lot of the 3CC pages have similar content, so it's easier to achieve consistency amongst those pages if someone like me goes over them with a comb. Being maintenance categories, that's precisely their role. enochlau (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only Wiki-OCD sufferer here. Do we count the "Delete" votes based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("Cruft!"), WP:IDONTCARE ("Well, I don't use it!"), and WP:PERNOM? -- Ben 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal

One problem with Category:Disambiguation is that it's so darn big. With other big categories, we use subcategories to break them down into more manageable sizes: novelists and poets are grouped by nationality, and each categorized in, for instance, "Russian poets" or "French poets" rather than the overall "Poets" category, so only the un-subcategorizable show up in the top category. Maybe, "to be consistent", the same organizing principle should apply here.

Rather than eliminate the 2CC, 3CC, etc., special-categories, perhaps we should subdivide the disambig category, to get that top category tag off most of the entries:

Disambiguation

Biographical disambiguation (personal names)
Geographical disambiguation (place names)
Acronym disambiguation (non-word strings)

2-character combinations
3-character combinations
4-character combinations
5-character combinations
6-or-more-character combinations

(Other) Word disambiguation (including words that may also serve as acronyms) ...

Pages to disambig words that also serve as acronyms should have both the "single-word" tag and the appropriate "acronym"-or-subsubcategory tag, so they show up in both lists. Add other subcategories as needed to keep the top category to a reasonable size. Only those disambig pages outside all the subcategories would still have the "Category:Disambiguation" tag and show up individually in that top category. Sound feasible? -- Ben 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this involves a reconsideration of the whole overall category, I've brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. While there, I noticed no mention of this CfD, which proposes a major elimination of subcategories. Doesn't that rather blindside people there? -- Ben 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over there, someone asked, essentially, why have subcategories? I'll repeat my answer here. Consider Category:Novelists -- which has several subcategories, like Category:Novelists by nationality -- which in turn has subsubcategories, like Category:American novelists and Category:Russian novelists -- which in turn have most of the individual articles on novelists. Only those few novelists who can't readily be so grouped (because their nationality is unknown or unclear, e.g. due to emigration during their writing careers) end up in the overall Category:Novelists. You can find all the "novelist" pages by looking at the top category page and also following the subcategories downward. This hierarchy groups and subgroups related-topic pages. As a result, someone familiar with one nation's novelists, or who has a book on the topic, can pick that subcategory to work through, not have to pick that little subset one-by-one out of a huge crowd. That's a big reason for having subcategories. Likewise, someone with a background or book on biographies, or geography, or perhaps a huge list of acronyms and abbreviations, can pick that subcategory to work through. But if the proposal to eliminate the subsubcategories (at CfD and TfD) goes through, and Category:Disambiguation becomes more of a "flat file", any such editor will have to plow through bigger lists, and more pages unrelated to what he wants to edit, which means we're throwing one more obstacle in his way. We shouldn't do that. -- Ben 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way: on your personal computer, do you keep all your files, of every type and topic, in one "flat" list, or do you organize them hierarchically, in folders and sub-folders and maybe even sub-sub-folders, so you can deal with just the set of files you want to deal with? Same principle. -- Ben 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I can kind of see where someone who wanted to deal with things related to the disambiguation of various acronyms could want the pages to be included in categories, so that they could find all the disambiguation pages that included acronyms. Just for reference's sake, I'm posting the clarifications I added of this proposal over at the TfD.

All disambiguation pages were marked with the {{disambig}} tag.
Categories for the appropriate disambiguation taking place on the pages were then added.
As many categories that apply to the page could be added.

No. 1 is important because there are a plethora of disambiguation pages that cover multiple topics, as we have all seen. No. 3 is important because then we can cover all the different uses of the entires on the pages. -- Natalya 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dab pages are not articles, because they do not have subjects. They inherently defy the system of article categories. The "n-CC" system strikes me as an ill-conceived attempt to extract meaning where there really is none. The only categories that might apply to dabs would fall under Category:Wikipedia maintenance or Category:Wikipedia administration, such as "long dabs", "short dabs", or (famously) "dabs needing cleanup". --Smack (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dab pages are not articles, because they do not have subjects"??? Of course they have subjects: they list (and, where available, link to articles on) all the separate subjects that may be referred to by the dab page's title -- all the people named X, places named Y, or other things named Z. To distinguish the different people so that readers can choose the article they want, Muhammad Ali (disambiguation) has to give some biographical data on each person -- dates, nationality, occupation -- which took research. That's an article in itself. Likewise, Norse has to teach you enough about the various languages and other things or peoples called "Norse" that you already know something about them by the time you select a link for further study, just so you can pick the right link. Again, that took research, even if from the linked articles themselves. So let's say your field is some European nation's history. You know the same family names keep popping up over and over again, because they're nobility, or have some tradition of craftwork, or keep producing writers. You might want to go through groups of biographical pages associated with that nation -- perhaps Category:Serbian writers, Category:Serbian poets, etc., to collect the sundry people named "Petrović" (the family name) and "Petrović-Njegoš" (the House name) for one disambig page, then on to "Popović", etc. But what such disambiguation pages already exist? You might find some of the disambig creation has already been done for you. You might find that these pages don't always cover all the people they should, and you can add more individuals to them. At least, you might do that if the dab pages are arranged in subgroups. If you have to go through the whole list of all disambigs to find just the human-name articles, what a long slow job that's going to be; never mind, go do something easier. -- Ben 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I was fully prepared to keep both the templates and categories if anyone could provide a plausible explanation for what function they serve. But I've not seen any such a plausible rationale. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my keep vote above? enochlau (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of sovereign states of 21st century

Category:Lists of sovereign states of 20th century

Propose renaming Category:Lists of sovereign states of 21st century to Category:Lists of sovereign states in the 21st century

Propose renaming Category:Lists of sovereign states of 20th century to Category:Lists of sovereign states in the 20th century

Nominator's Rationale: Rename for style. Cloachland 20:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Cloachland. Proposed name is less awkward sounding (for lack of better words). Picaroon 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.—Ketil Trout 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of sovereign countries in the 20th century, Category:Lists of sovereign countries in the 21th century --Cat out 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't there be a better way to point out "sovereign states" by year in a more effective way? --Cat out 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Better style. --Mal 12:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Transport

Category:Transportation --> Category:Transport

Category:International transportation --> Category:International transport

Category:Transportation lists --> Category:Transport lists

Category:Transportation accident lists --> Category:Transport accident lists

Category:Transportation disasters --> Category:Transport disasters

Category:Transportation disasters by country --> Category:Transport disasters by country

Category:Transportation by country --> Category:Transport by country

Category:Transportation engineering --> Category:Transport engineering

Category:Transportation in fiction --> Category:Transport in fiction

Category:Funeral transportation --> Category:Funeral transport

Category:History of transportation --> Category:History of transport

Category:Transportation magazines --> Category:Transport magazines

Category:Transportation occupations --> Category:Transport occupations

Category:Transportation operations --> Category:Transport operations

Category:Transportation planning --> Category:Transport planning

Category:Transportation portals --> Category:Transport portals

Category:Vertical transportation devices --> Category:Vertical transport devices

Category:Transportation by continent --> Category:Transport by continent

Rename all. It seems "transport" form is going to be the preferred term here. Most of subcategories of "Transportation by country" already use "transport" form. Also main article is "transport". Note that US-related categories are not proposed for renaming. - Darwinek 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this another British vs American English problem? Every catgegory I saw regarding the United States using 'transportation' and I do not believe that 'transport' is used in the US for this purpose: do not read or hear this term except from British sources. Hmains 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is not. Thing is, "transport" form is used in vast majority of countries throughout the world. Transportation is an US-issue. And we have here a horrible mess combining both forms. - Darwinek 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The original name is US based and changing to the UK form is not needed. Vegaswikian 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. as per nom Mayumashu 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for general consistency, but U.S. categories should stay at "transportation". AshbyJnr 16:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Transportation is fine. Either everything (including US) gets renamed or nothing is renamed. --Cat out 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Transportation is fine. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is a tricky situation, as to which variety of English is to be used for international categorisation. Given that 'transportation' seems to be a peculiarly US usage, and that the vast majority of countries seem to use 'transport', I think that continued use of 'transportation' is vaguely inappropriate.

Xdamr^talk 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Transportation" is hardly peculiar to the U.S. and Canada; it is the form used by the respective ministries in Indonesia, South Korea and the Philippines, for a start, and not uncommon in Japan either. Neither is it strictly a question of what form is used in how many countries, but what form is used by users of the English WP, which I think everyone will agree has an overrepresentation of North Americans.-choster 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you would agree, I think, that these countries are far more linguistically influenced by the US than the UK. To counterbalance I could point you to most of Africa, Europe, India and Pakistan, Oceania, etc, etc. It is established on WP that we ought not to impose one variety of English over another, and that national topics should largely be covered in the appropriate variety of English—the preponderance of US editors aside.

Xdamr^talk 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose AE?BE fiddling, which should be squashed. Follow national usage, and don't try for a foolish consistency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Irish paramilitaries

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish paramilitaries to Category:Northern Irish terrorists

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Recently renamed as NI paramilitaries in contrast to the established consensus for this category type, having survived four CfD nominations in the past, to be named as Fooian terrorists. Renaming to Fooian terrorists is consistent with all its sister categories:

There is no reason that this particular category should be treated any differently. Additionally, the category is sub-ordinate to the categories Category:British terrorists and Category:Terrorism in Northern Ireland. Mal 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Inconsistency is fine, if it serves a purpose, but no purpose is served by this example of weasel wording in action. Angus McLellan (Talk)
General comment: the word terrorist got misused so much by the media and politicians that it is impossible to use it rationally, without instant rush of adrenaline and emotions. This makes it very unsuitable for the free for all structure of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; is there a Wiki definition for terrorism, I think that would be important to define before a change were to be considered. It could be argued that every arm of terrorism, both state and extra-state terrorism should be included, which may lead to edit warring. At the moment I'd prefer the status quo. Taramoon 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a definition stated in the top-level category, here, and this is pointed to in most of the sub-cats: "(See Category:Terrorists for the definition of "terrorist" as used in Wikipedia categorization.)" I should point out that the status quo had been in support of consistency for each of these categories, until this category was recently cfd'ed on its own. This category had existed by its original name for nearly six months (I'm guessing because the recent move destroyed the edit history). --Mal 12:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia policy specifically discourages the word terrorist in categorization due to its controversial nature.[1] The term also invokes POV. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Wryspy 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with that is that this category is being treated differently with respect to all its sister categories. If you feel these categories are in error, the proper procedure would be to nominate the whole group. Renaming this cat has caused an inconsistency. Please read the nomination reasons more carefully. I should note that the category group has been nominated for the very reason yuo give four times, and survived each one. Consensus appears to be against the Wiki Guidelines in this instance. --Mal 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Paramilitary !== terrorist. Also, what Wryspy said. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read the reasons for nomination carefully and reconsider. --Mal 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response because I haven't time to write a long one right now. Mal, you were right pointing me to the nomination rationale, thank You, I understand now. However, I still feel that something's not right here. Terrorist is a strong word, on the other hand its meaning got diluted in the last years somewhat, and it's very convenient to use it sometimes. I'd say I'm still against this category naming convention. Not all people who fight for a purpose are terrorists. If this discussion is still here tomorrow evening then I'll be glad to elaborate, but right now I simply haven't got the time, sorry. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All terrorist categories must be deleted. --Cat out 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW there's Category:Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland (and the parent Category:Paramilitary organizations), so the existance of a 'members of paramilitary organizations' for Northern Ireland (which seems to be roughly this category) doesn't seem that strange. Mairi 21:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Terrorist" is a politically-biased label. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, and one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighting partisan/maquis/rebel etc. But they're all paramilitaries. Paramilitary is NPOV, it has a definition. Terrorist is a blanket term with no safe definition, applied unevenly according to political allegiance, and is most definitely not NPOV. --John Lunney 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.. Terrorist is a POV label. --Barry talk 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for all. Please read the rationale at the top - "POV" isn't in question. This category was renamed from Northern Irish terrorists which has created inconsistency in Wikipedia.
If you want to discuss the meaning of the word terrorism and you feel strongly about this category, then feel free to nominate ALL the other categories (most of which are listed above) that include the word terrorism.
Otherwise I'll just be bold. Thank you. --Mal 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse rename. Instead, change all "terrorist" cats to "paramilitary" (or possibly "freedom fighter"). Terrorist is a POV label. >Radiant< 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To my mind 'freedom fighter' sounds even worse—it sounds more like a ringing endorsement, lauding their noble quest for freedom, than a descriptive term (not your intent, I'm sure).

This is always going to be a tricky area. 'Terrorist' has been misused to a great extent and as such has rather lost its objectivity. Having said that, looking at the Terrorism article, the UN seem to have derived a decent definition of 'terrorism', so it only seems to be a matter of perception that it is non-neutral. The alternatives, such as 'militant' or 'paramilitary' sound mealy mouthed. Perhaps we should set these terms aside? Try and describe the group(s) rather than apply a tainted label?

What is the defining characteristic of a 'terrorist' group? To my mind it is the use of coercion. Can we do something with this word (or an alternative adjective)? How does it sound to describe them as 'Northern Irish coercive groups' (and members thereof)?

Xdamr^talk 15:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse. Thank you for your objective approach Xdamr. I'm not sure that "coercive" would be quite right, though it might be worth considering some kind of alternative. However, this nomination still isn't to debate the Political Correctness of the word terrorists - the purpose is: should this category be treated any differently than the other categories that already exist, but haven't been renamed. It is, in my opinion, weasely to change them one at a time rather than to nominate the whole group. Also, it leaves an inconsistency in Wikipedia.

As an aside, the top-level category includes a definition of terrorism. My opinion is that the word terrorism is fine - it describes exactly what the word was presumably created to describe. --Mal 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. 'Terrorism' is not inherently POV. POVness depends on the definition. The top-level category defines 'terrorism' for the purposes of the category and its sub-categories (although I would suggest that a sourced definition is used instead, like the UN one I alluded to above). There is no reason for NI to be treated any differently from the others, as such it should be renamed for consistency. If other editors object to the continued use of 'terrorism' then this really should form the basis of a separate, group nomination.

Xdamr^talk 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Masonic scholars

This category is very small and ambiguous. It is supposed to be for Masons who were scholars of Masonry, but of the eight that were there, one was neither a Mason nor a scholar of Masonry, and two were Masons but not scholars of Masonry. Of the remaining correct entries, only Mackey is famous for only Masonic writings (Pike is debatable). Hall and Waite are better known as occult writers, and Chornenky is a vanity article. Therefore, the category is superfluous. MSJapan 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you know what it is supposed to be for? The category states no criteria for inclusion. It seem to me that it should be for scholars who were Masons, and as such I don't see why we should delete it. It needs cleanup, but I say weak keep. Lesnail 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If one cannot tell what a category is supposed to be for, it is unlikely to be used in a consistent manner, so it will not be of much value to readers. Olborne 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize

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

The result of the debate was delete (it's already listified). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another award given to famous people who win lots of awards anyway (such as Jimmy Carter and Juan Carlos I of Spain). The category, like many other award categories, does little to describe the subjects' achievements but does contribute to category clutter on the articles' pages. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Dr. S on the unnec & undefining aspects of these pile-on award winner categories. --lquilter 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. Coemgenus 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is recurring problem that should be solved by a guideline. Many historical persons had served, according to associated categories, primarily as medal hangers. For example Josip Broz Tito has currently 4 award categories, Churchill at least 9. Pavel Vozenilek 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Dr. Submillimeter 08:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and I second Pavel's observation above. Radical idea: How about converting all award/prize categories (that are not titles/decorations?) into lists (interlinked?), then placing links to them from Category:Awards and Category:Awards by subject...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most award recipients are already listed in the articles on the awards. See Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize, for example. It is also already listed in Category:Peace prizes. Dr. Submillimeter 08:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. AshbyJnr 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete category. --Cat out 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per above. Doczilla 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anna Nicole Smith

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we need a whole category on her. By this logic we could have a category for every person in Wikipedia, as they all are related to other notable subjects.Iosef ^{U T C} 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DESTROY!!! - she has died last thursday! UnknownMan 00:19, 11 February 2007
Strong Keep. There are plenty of notable celebrities who are as public eye as Mrs. Smith was that have their own categories. Example:Category:Paris Hilton. QuasyBoy 13:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Category:Paris Hilton is also up for possible deletion along the same lines as this one. Dugwiki 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the articles are people, who will be otherwise linked from her article; the show; the case; and a couple of films. All of these will be otherwise linked from her article. An eponymous category is not necessary for ANS. (Nor for Paris Hilton.) --lquilter 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is a navigational aid to her lengthy article. TonyTheTiger 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People should not have categories. Wikipedia isn't the Kevin Bacon game. -- KelleyCook 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Lquilter. Most eponymous categories are not needed, and do not add anything useful. We have "What links here" and the links in the article. If neither does a good job of finding related articles to the subject than there is a value in creating an eponymous category. Otherwise, it is redundant and adds clutter. -- Samuel Wantman 07:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of a rationale because I cant see any reason why this category exists. --Cat out 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Just because she is a [recently] dead major celeberty, doesn't mean she has to have Her name everywhere on the internet.Corporal Punishment 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly relevant articles/categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No different than Martha Stuart or Vino Chopra RaveenS 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: She merits a page, not a category!! How many individuals on Wikipedia have their own categories?Conrad Falk 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. It doesn't say anything about when to decide if there should be topic or eponymous categories. It only says that if there are categories, the topic article & the topic category should both be categorized in the appropriate supercategory. There's no basis on saying either "keep" or "delete" from the Topic article rule.--Iosef ^{U T C} 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons given above Bbagot 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aviation lists

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Aviation-related lists. (Apparently the merge has been done already, so as I post this the categories are identical twins.) --RobertG ♬ talk 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation lists to Category:Aviation-related lists

Merge. Duplicates. Greg Grahame 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to Aviation-related lists as I think this is the standard...? David Kernow (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia

The history of this category is linked to Template:Catholic-expand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its cousin Template:HistSource (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). These templates, and by extension this category, are a Bad Thing, encouraging editors to use obsolete and/or POV public-domain sources rather than modern reliable sources. The existence of this category gives an air of false authority of to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 vintage). Further arguments can be found at the WP:TFD and WP:DRV debates, including: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 2, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 30, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categories should not be used to recommend references. Moreover, the recommended reference may be obsolete. Dr. Submillimeter 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nomination.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merge where? No merge has been proposed. Dr. Submillimeter 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please postpone this discussion until [this discussion] has been resolved? If not then Keep. JASpencer 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to postpone the discussion. I consider this a separate issue. Even if the template deletion gets overturned, there's no reason to let it dump the category into every talk page it touches. — coelacan talk — 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet in the next argument Folantin says "Per all the arguments I provided in related discussions". It is clearly related. All I'm asking is to slow things down, take the heat out of the discussion and try to reach a concensus rather than butting heads. Taking one thing at a time is surely a reasonable way to do this. JASpencer 10:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all the arguments I provided in related discussions, most notably the lack of reliability of this out-of-date source. This will damage Wikipedia's accuracy. --Folantin 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an objection to the source or the principle? JASpencer 10:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both. This would set an extremely bad precedent. The use we've seen of this category/template has hardly inspired confidence. Now please answer my concerns about reliability. You have only inadvertently addressed the issue so far. --Folantin 11:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only mention you have put here is that it is in a related discussion. Is it in a current or previous related discussion? JASpencer 11:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refresh your memory. "The creator of this template [which also quite obviously applies to this category] has failed to address the fundamental problem of the reliability of obsolete and often POV sources. The creator himself has been misled by out-of-date information in the 1913 CE [2]. We should not be recommending such sources to complete strangers. Our aim is to improve Wikipedia, not expand it with erroneous information." --Folantin 11:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was on a different discussion. I assumed that you and John Bod were different people so I was of course confused by your reference to "my concerns". And I did answer it there by putting forward the opinion that the CE could be regarded as fairly reliable in some areas such as Catholic theology and Catholic practice. However you are right in that that discussion was never finished before this discussion was started. JASpencer 11:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That quotation was from my contribution to the HistSource discussion - the very discussion you've been commenting on within the last half hour. John Bod caught you "in flagrante" recommending obsolete and inaccurate information should be added from the old CE. You have added this "Catholic Encylopedia expandable" category to a large number of articles on a variety of subjects from art history to anthropology. Nothing I've seen makes me trust the old CE's accuracy - you yourself have shown what happens when you rely on it. The reason why we're having these multiple discussions is because you created multiple ways of recommending the addition of 1913 CE material to Wikipedia, so I'm afraid you've only got yourself to blame for the confusion. --Folantin 11:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not a forum designed for dialogue, but is your objection to the use of the Catholic Encyclopedia to going on any subject (including Catholic theology) or on subjects that you regard as outside it's specialism? JASpencer 12:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you didn't like goalpost-shifting? Never mind. No, I've seen nothing to convince me that the old CE is a reliable source in any area. There are more accurate and up-to-date scholarly works about Catholic theology out there and editors should use them. --Folantin 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to change any criteria, I was just trying to get a handle on what your point of view is (dialogue). The problem with this forum is that it's designed for conflict. By the way sarcastic comments don't help if you're trying to discuss things reasonably. JASpencer 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has the same effect as the old templates, to force Wikipedia to mirror the Catholic Encyclopedia. From Wikipedia talk:Catholic Encyclopedia topics#Proposed Policy Redux, in the words of this category's creator:
1. The article linked in Wikipedia must be of the same subject as in the Catholic Encyclopedia and 2. A link to the Catholic Encyclopedia is either in the main page or the discussion page 3. If the article is still missing relevant information from the Catholic Encyclopedia then Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia is added to the Talk Page.[3]
Wikipedia articles should not be held hostage to any particular source. The demand that we include CE material until a particular article has "enough" CE material is simply not a reasonable demand. — coelacan talk — 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not holding hostage. Please calm down. JASpencer 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite calm. But I've seen over and over again that your intention is to demand articles mirror CE material until you're satisfied that they have "enough". That's hostage-taking. — coelacan talk — 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Folantin. This is really not a source we should be using, and sometimes no information is preferred to that which is false or misleading. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So is this an objection to the source or the principle? JASpencer 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What principle are we talking about? Please inform. As to the source: yes, I absolutely object to it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of pointing to a source where the coverage in Wikipedia is inadequate. I've a question on the source, but I'll come back to it. JASpencer 16:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that principle, but this "source" is not acceptable for us to use. It is, quite frankly, not reliable and blatantly biased. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criminy, I just read the CE article on Beethoven and it's a complete joke. The article on Mozart is not much better and contains several glaring factual inaccuracies. We cannot use this material. Period. Even for the limited amount of topics concerning the Catholic Church that are as true now as they were back then I would be far happier if we used more modern scholarship: this material is ludicrous. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't WP:RS say "In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ." JASpencer 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I see nothing there that says it acceptable to use archaic scholarship, and that certainly rules out the use of the CE for anything other than catholic-church related topics. And I don't think that many in the Catholic Church today would say that this ancient encyclopedia was written by "recognized authorities on the religion", nor that the encyclopedia itself is a recognized authority on Catholicism. The Catholic Church has changed considerably over the last 100 years. So no, WP:RS does not condone the use of this material. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Catholic Encyclopedia can be used as a source, but as it comes with an unabashed bias it should not be highlighted as a preferred source. AshbyJnr 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a problem for say, stubs on Roman Catholic theologians? JASpencer 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly use the CE for that if you want. The problem comes when we have a category spread over many articles that makes it seem as though the CE is an acceptable source for everyone to use: it isn't. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is the notion that this category (or template or whatever else you try) should be attached to article that don't have "enough" CE material, and not removed until they have "enough". If you find articles you think would benefit from CE material, you are welcome to leave a plain-text note on the article's talk page and let other editors determine how much if any they would like to include. We don't need to burden such articles with a demand that will sit there until you've determined it can be removed. — coelacan talk — 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, gives an unfortunate impression of a "preferred source". Any practical use this has can be served by liftification, which already seems to be in play anyway. Alai 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's liftification? JASpencer 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to listification, but less well-typed. Alai 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I doubt that any lists will be allowed to stay standing in a couple of weeks, but that is another matter. There's an attempt to try to find some common ground here. As it's not time limited there should be some cooler heads. JASpencer 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --Cat out 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, C3. >Radiant< 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral If the argument is against referring to any source in the talk pages and wiki policy frowns upon this practice, then I agree with deletion. If the difficulty is with the source, then I am opposed to deletion. For historical figures or historical customs especially, information does not automatically become out of date. Bbagot 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What? Again? I !voted to delete this before; and my reasons stand. The category description is better worded; if JASpencer wanted to userify and subst that as a private template I might not object; but he would be better occupied actually considering each article and suggesting which assertions of the CE he thinks still scholarly consensus and not in the article - or he might even add the information to the articles himself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country-related
Category:Lists of Hong Kong secretaries

Category:Ministers of Lithuania

Category:Cabinet secretaries of Mexico

Category:Members of the Cabinet of New Zealand

Category:Members of the Cabinet of Singapore

Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States

Rename all of these to match the standard (i.e. "<countryname> <people>"). >Radiant< 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a mixed bunch of specialist categories. I don't fully understand what is proposed, but it doesn't look like a promising proposal. Cloachland 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that this is a procedural nom; I found these as part of an earlier CFD I closed. Note that most of Category:Government ministers by country has a different form than these six. >Radiant< 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment almost all the subcategories of Category:Government ministers by country are of the form "Government ministers of Foo", so the supposed standard doesn't seem to be applicable in this case. Mairi 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These categories broadly follow the convention used in Category:Government ministers by country. Perhaps they should be subcategories of government minister categories for their respective countries. AshbyJnr 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Consistency for the masses! --Cat out 20:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is clear neither what is wrong with the current names nor what the proposed replacement names actually are. Olborne 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alien species
Merge into Category:Invasive species, appears to be a duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a reverse merge to the more common term. >Radiant< 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I wouldn't advise following Radiant's suggestion, since that seems to overlap with category:Fictional extraterrestrial species.--Mike Selinker 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Invasive species - "Invasive species" imples animals such as the house sparrow, which is what this category intends. In Wikipedia, "alien species" may imply science-fiction creatures, which is not the category's intentions. Dr. Submillimeter 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category does not contain enough information and there is only two articles in this category.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't alien species cat need to be a disambig cat? 132.205.44.134 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Invasive speciesBiophys 17:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (already merged). category:Fictional extraterrestrial species is not the issue. The Alien species in question are terrestrial animals not native to the habitat they invade. Please for the love of madness read the first paragraph of Invasive species before even considering to vote. --Cat out 20:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here knows that the category is about earth animal species. The point that some of us are raising is that "alien species" creates an ambiguity that "invasive species" does not.--Mike Selinker 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oklahoma Sooners starting quarterbacks

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

The result of the debate was delete (didn't merge per Nmajdan). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Oklahoma Sooners football players, somehow I don't think team / position cats are a good idea. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A bad precedent which if followed would make the existing category clutter on sports-bios even worse. Osomec 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Pathogen category. Kill it before it spreads.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't MergeThis is strictly a category for starting quarterbacks. The quarterback is a unique position that has only one starter (potentially more with injury, etc.) in any given season. That in itself is unique enough to merit a separate category. With regard to other positions (which generally have more than one starter), I can see it being unnecessary, but this is a good precedent to start, given that people are likely to search for starting qbs vice any other position. Desert sapper 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)desert sapper[reply]

Delete Overcategorisation. Greg Grahame 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorisation. TonyTheTiger 20:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Too specific. Coemgenus 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization/trivia. Doczilla 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All athletes in the category are already in [[:Category:Oklahoma Sooners football players.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Peel Regional Roads
Merge into Category:Roads in Peel Region, see January 6th discussion. This is a repost of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reason for request. Agent 86 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it was deleted before, it should be speedied. --Cat out 19:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GHR, we are trying to sort out roads according to their number. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat posted at 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Smcafirst. Stephy100--A person who loves music! 04:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all keep reasons above. Mix Precipitation 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Erdős number 1

Category:Erdős number 2

Category:Erdős number 3

Category:Erdős number 4

Category:Erdős number 5

Category:Erdős number 6

Category:Erdős number 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion --Cat out 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - This may be interesting trivia, but it is not useful for describing the accomplishments of individuals. Dr. Submillimeter 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For whatever reason, people in math & computer science do actually use this. I have trouble seeing it as other than "trivia" myself, but it would be interesting to hear a mathematician/CS person explain the significance and how it's used. --lquilter 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no "significance" to these categories, they are just a quirky game. Osomec 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Erdős numbers are actually used. However, I agree it's not worth a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed just last October. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_October_8#Erd.C5.91s_number_categories Why is it being brought up again? Roger Hui 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're in a bout of "category cleaning" time. Lots of established categories are being deleted too. Maybe it's the weather or a few new members.--T. Anthony 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The earlier discussion made the strong point that Erdos numbers are (a) commonly seen in math (and CS) circles; and (b) useful for showing connectivity. I think both those propositions are unquestionably true, and no one is questioning, say, having Erdos #s in math-bio-boxes or in the text of the article or having an article dedicated to explaining the phenomena. I'm not sure about argument (b). The information that is captured -- relational data -- is important, but I'm not sure it's well-represented by a particular category. For instance, categories for children of X, parents of X, first-degree cousins of X, and so forth, wouldn't really be a good way to handle something useful, even if X were a really notable person (Genghis Khan, Jesus Christ, ancestral person X). Other instances of "relational" categories have also been going down -- relationship to employer, wife of, etc. ... The argument that it's common seen & used in math is more appealing to me. Even if it's not independently useful, the fact that it is an expected & identifying (and defining?) fact about mathematicians suggests it ought to be here. Culturally-specific references shouldn't be excluded from categories just because they're not completely generalist. --lquilter 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per discussion last October. Roger Hui 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_October_8#Erd.C5.91s_number_categories[reply]

Delete These categories appear to be of no value whatsoever for any serious research purpose. Cloachland 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all possibly listify, but I don't see the need to do even that. 132.205.44.134 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

String Keep Nothing has changed since the previous CFD on these categories. Bluap 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultratrivia making the articles look like piece of crap from a Sunday magazine. Categories should not serve as a substitute of online database and should be used only for the most defining characteristics. Pavel Vozenilek 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These have no actual use. What does the fact that Niels Bohr has a Erdős number 5 tell us or help us to do anything. They are also totally incomplete. Almost everyone who has published a paper in Maths or Physics probably has an Erdős number of 6 or less, but most of them do not care. --Bduke 01:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of in-jokes. AshbyJnr 16:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per arguments raised in previous CFD. This is not an arbitrary inclusion criteria and it isn't a "quirky game" either. Just because something is cute and funny doesn't mean it can't be serious as well. Anyway, I suppose I would akin this to Category:Academy Award winners, as it serves as a rough indicator of whether the person has worked with "good" mathematicians on papers. It seems relevant enough to me. SnowFire 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is completely unreliable as a measure mathematicians' stature. Postlebury 00:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... per discussion last October. (As distinct from, number of keeps last October.) Trivial, meaningless, overcategorisation being elevated far beyond its modest notability. Alai 02:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While they may serve as a good measure of someone's "notability" in a certain field (this is debateable and I'm not debating it right now), there seems to be no good reason why you would want to get from one person of Erdos number 6 (say) to another person of Erdos number 6. Someone with an Erdos number 6 is only connected to the one person of Erdos number 5 from whom they received their number, and with potentially unlimited people of Erdos number 7, to whom they gave numbers. There is no way to include such information in these categories. -- Supermorff 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all This is, to be sure, an unusual topic. Personally, after reading the article Erdos number and the previous cfd and this cfd, I'm not convinced this number is used for much of anything besides simple curiosity. However, I will recommend keeping for a couple of reasons. First, I dislike going against previous keep results in cfd unless something significant has changed. But off-hand I don't see that anything has changed since October that necessitates invalidating the previous cfd result. Secondly, the supporters made a reasonable sounding argument that tagging mathematicians and scientists by Erdos number is a common practice in some important and influential publications and directories within the mathematical community, and that being able to look up people with the same Erdos number is officially supported. Since it sounds like assigning the Erdos number is possibly a well accepted practice, I'm willing to give a little more benefit to the doubt that this is probably a beneficial category for a variety of readers. Finally it doesn't appear that this category is necessarilly difficult to maintain as the numbers should be easy to validate at online databases. Therefore even though I personally am not really convinced it's actually all that useful, I'll going to give it some leeway and recommend keep. Dugwiki 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a game, even if it is one that amuses a fair number of people. Olborne 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was kept previously, i don't think having this category would detract from an article in any sense. 169.229.89.53 11:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're discussing this again? And without notifying WT:WPM? This information is widely noted, even famous, I'd say: many nonmathematicians know what it is. Therefore a fortiori it's notable, no matter how trivial or meaningless one considers it. —David Eppstein 07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I added a note about this to WT:WPM. Please leave this open for several more days in order to give the members there a chance to see and respond.[reply]

Strong keep as per previous discussion. Please stop wasting our time with such re-nominations. Also, not notifying the WikiProject Mathematics folks suggests this has not been done in good faith, but is a sneak assault. Since the previous debate is prominently visible, there is no excuse. --KSmrq^T 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If it's good enough for MathSciNet to keep track of, we should keep track of it here too. I agree with KSmrq. VectorPosse 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. (i) It is notable; (ii) professional mathematicians take their Erdős number very seriously; (iii) it has been studied as an example of a small world network. Gandalf61 09:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. It's widely used by mathematicians, who generally think it's important. How can the non-mathematicians decide what is or is not important to mathematicians? They can't, unless they become mathematicians. And then they'll see how important it is! DavidCBryant 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to note (in response to such a comment as "making the articles look like piece of crap from a Sunday magazine") that I suspect the average reader doesn't even pay any attention to the categories at the bottom of the page. Further, we don't have the same notability criteria for categories that we do for articles, so arguments about the triviality of the information collected by the category aren't really valid. I can easily want to know who has an Erdos number of 1 or 2, although it's a pretty large set. Going beyond six would be ridiculous, partly because I'm not positive anyone exists with an Erdos number that high. In short: at least some people (mathematicians, particularly) will conceivably want to browse by Erdos number, and I don't think that having them detracts from the article for nonmathematicians. --Sopoforic 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the history of mathematics belongs in Wikipedia, and Erdős was notable in 20th-century mathematics, using such categories seems harmless. I note User:David Eppstein's comment (above) that WikiProject Mathematics was not notified of this debate until 19 February, and request that time be allowed for those editors to contribute to this discussion. EdJohnston 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1, 2, and 3, delete 4, 5, 6. Very well known classification in mathematics, but numbers >3 are of no importance and become too hard to verify. Quale 21:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For mathematicians, at least, larger numbers may be verified easily enough using the online Erdős number calculator at MathSciNet. One needs a subscription for access, so ease of verification is about the same as that for papers in most scientific journals: you probably can't do it from home but you can if you walk into a public university's library. —David Eppstein 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It superficially seems like fluffy trivia, but it seems some people in the mathematical profession take Erdos numbers seriously and maybe even solemnly at times. Michael Hardy 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People related to the Cato Institute

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People related to the Cato Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - This lists people who have worked for the Cato Institute, a think tank. Like other people in other think tank categories, people in this category are not noted primarily for their work in the think tank but are instead noted for other activities (e.g. Rupert Murdoch). This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Affiliation/employment categories are generally problematic as a categorization tool; see the NBC/ABC/etc personalities deletion discussions of 2007/2/3. Better as a list. --lquilter 13:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Osomec 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the relation is important it should be mentioned in the article. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I relate to that institute too, I live on the same planet. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. --Cat out 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rhetoricians
Category:Rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Ancient Greek rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Ancient Roman rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:British rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Dutch rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:English rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Italian rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - The term "rhetorician" could be applied to anyone who attempts to argue a viewpoint (including me). Given the overly-broad scope of the term, the category does not appear useful. Hence, this part of the category tree should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion. --Cat out 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The categories for modern countries for sure. The two ancient categories may be legitimate if Ancient Romans and Greeks are commonly defined in this way. Cloachland 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of the ancient Greek and Roman people are referred to "rhetoricians". However, they could also be referred to as "writers", "philosophers", or other things as well. Dr. Submillimeter 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost invariably defined that way; "rhetoric" is one of the Seven Liberal Arts, not a branch of philosophy. The modern categories are in fact being used for Renaissance equivalents, like Francis Bacon and Desiderius Erasmus.

Keep The ancient Greek and Roman categories as history has pretty much defined the term in regard to antiquity. Bbagot 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This does not mean, and does not appear to being used for, "orator"; it is being used for writers and teachers of rhetoric, the technique of oratory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Septentrionalis, although the criteria for inclusion should be spelled out so as to head off misunderstandings. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Murderers
Propose renaming Category:Murderers to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This category is a potential nightmare. I'm frankly stunned that it has persisted as long as it has. Among the many problems with the category: living people who have not been convicted of murder are listed which seems to be in violation of WP:BLP; "murder" has a specific legal definition, which varies from one jurisdiction to another, so a category designed to capture people who have caused the death of another person that uses the word "murder" is extremely problematic. The category description indicates that it is for people who have "allegedly commited murder" which, good god, what kind of POV does that open the catehory to if someone decides that anyone who's had an abortion has committed murder. The only rename I can think of is something like Category:Convicted murderers. Otto4711 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate: in a CFD discussion in February last year, I proposed that this category be renamed to Category:Convicted murderers. I still stand by my reasoning there, although I now suggest a slightly different approach that this category be deprecated and all articles moved to appropriate subcategories. To summarise the main points:
"Murder" is a legal term with a specific meaning. "Murderer" similarly has a specific meaning, namely someone convicted of murder. It can have no other meaning.

The category has at times been used to include people suspected of murder, people never convicted of murder, people on trial for or under arrest for murder and so on. This has the potential to present massive WP:BLP problems, aside from being inaccurate.

The category is imprecise, and fails to convey useful information to readers.
I therefore propose that all articles be removed from this category and be placed in an appropriate subcategory. Since the legal definition of murder varies between jurisdictions, subcategories should be established for each jurisdiction, along the lines of Category:People convicted of murder in Australia. Further categories for related legal states should be established (Category:People on trial for murder, Category:People charged with murder, Category:People declared unfit to stand trial and so on), which should be similarly contain no articles but be divided by jurisdiction.

In time, the same process should be applied to all categories in Category:Criminals. --bainer (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thebainer's idea though I believe it would be better to just categorize in a binary manner. Consider a "People convicted of murder" (for concluded trials) vs "People suspected of murder" (for ongoing trials/pre-trials and other situations where a conviction hasn't happened yet but is a possibility). Of course sorting by country/legal system goes without saying. --Cat out 12:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As has been pointed several times before there are major problems with using "convicted" in categories for criminals. It reflects a modern perspective, and it ignores people who died before trial/fled from justice etc. Osomec 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have overlooked the fact that "murder" is a legal term with a specific meaning. Only people convicted of murder can accurately be called murderers, and this and any successor category should rightly exclude people who died or absconded before trial. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... thereby excluding Brutus, John Wilkes Booth, and Lee Harvey Oswald? -- Ben 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Convicted is too exclusive. Murderers is a fine term for what these people do, and if tehre's doubt about an entry, boot it from the category.--Mike Selinker 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support >Cat out's idea. TonyTheTiger 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Only those who are alive can sue, but most of them won't and they can be taken out of the categories if there is doubt. Cloachland 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Them able to sue is not an inclusion criteria. --Cat out 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia's legal position is a major consideration, as is the case with any publication. Olborne 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support creating two separate categories "people convicted of murder" and "people suspected of murder" per Cool Cat. This category has long been a problem. I happened across it due to a problem at Mumia Abu Jamal, and discussed the possibility of nominating it then (but didn't due to the old CfD). delldot | talk 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald would become merely "suspected of murder"? They did not live to face trial, but is there reasonable (non-crackpot) historical doubt? -- Ben 22:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was never convicted. Suspected people can also be murderers. The level of suspicion should be explained in the article. --Cat out 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The sad reality is the conviction or lack thereof is not a reliable indicator of whether a person is known for all practical purposes to have been a murderer. Olborne 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But murder is a legal term with a specific meaning. We wouldn't use a scientific term in a way that defies its meaning; we wouldn't put dolphin in Category:Fish just because they really look like fish. Why should legal terms be treated differently from scientific terms (or any other specialist terms)? --bainer (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Murder" is primarily a general English word not a legal term, and it represents a concept that goes back thousands of years further than the legal concept of conviction. Haddiscoe 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Current governments in Kurdistan

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current governments in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth
We do not categorise governments based on geographic regions but by country. Kurdistan is a mere geographic region according to the Wikipedia article. There is only one government inside the category (Iraqi Kurdistan) and it does not appear there will be more in a reasonable amount of time. Category feels redundant and can be just as easily be categorized under Category:Government of Iraq (which it is already). --Cat out 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word "current" should not be used for any category. Otherwise Kurdistan is more than a geographical region for quite a many people. (Metternich had claimed the same about Italy.) Pavel Vozenilek 11:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Italy today claims to be independent and is recognized as independent by all countries (IIRC). Same can't be said about Kurdistan. No one claims Kurdistan to be a country, not even Iraqi Kurdistan. --Cat out 12:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—POV categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—POV categorisation. Must^TC 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Baristarim 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Murderers of children
Category:Murderers of children into Category:Murderers
Merge - I see no reason why people who murdered "children" (which term is undefined in terms of age) should be categorized separately from other murderers. IOW, this is over-categorization. Otto4711 10:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Children is ambiguous (legal age for child varies). Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. --Cat out 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the major categories of murder and the category has previously been renamed from Category:Child murderers to remove ambiguity. The age limit is the age limit in the relevant jurisdiction, in modern times when there is one, or otherwise use editorial judgement. It really isn't a problem. What is more there should be no articles at all in category:Murderers itself so this is a retrogressive proposal. Osomec 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the suggestion is to merge it with relevant subcat. --Cat out 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there be no articles in Category:Murderers? Otto4711 18:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that category has subdivisions that help keep it from being overly large and unmanageable.--Mike Selinker 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. I don't care whether the category is deleted, but I absolutely oppose a merge of articles into a category without any.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with Osomec. Rosemary Amey 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Rename this category to Category:Child murderers.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Child murderers" is ambiguous; it could describe murderers who are children, as well as murderers of children. If this category is kept, do not rename to Child murderers. --lquilter 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Osomec. Cloachland 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, contrary to said aboive, category is well defined: each murderer killed a child in the corresponding jurisdiction. `'mikka 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. It's listified at FA Cup Final. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players who scored in an FA Cup Final

Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers

Category:Players who scored in an FA Cup Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is redundant, already have established category Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers, which has a shorter and better name, in my opinion. Qwghlm 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. Someone scoring a goal should not be a category. --Cat out 13:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Ten seconds of work does not justify a category. This is not a useful way of identifying top footballers, or even top English strikers (eg it doesn't include Shearer, Lineker or Rooney). I have tagged Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers Osomec 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and listify. Far more info can be added to a list (what year? what team? Did they score twice or more?). Grutness...wha? 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers. The category should be retained. Scoring an FA Cup final goal is often the pinnacle of a player's career, and is often all they are remembered for e.g. Bobby Stokes. A list is a great idea, but should be in addition to the category, not instead of. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - People are not categorized this way in other sports, nor would it make sense to do so. Similar arguments could be made for something such as Category:NFL players who scored a touchdown in the Super Bowl or Category: Major Leage Baseball players who hit a home run in the World Series. Those singular events may be important in the individuals' careers, but listing all of the "important" scores in athletes' sports careers leads to unweildly category clutter, as can already be seen in many articles on football (soccer) players. Dr. Submillimeter 13:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as trivial and coincidental. AshbyJnr 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - overcategorisation. ArtVandelay13 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers. It may only take a few seconds to score a cup final goal, but such moments are remembered for years to come (think Ricky Villa, Alan Sunderland, Norman Whiteside and many, many others). Also the final is broadcast all around the world, so the impact goes far beyond England. Deserves it's own category, but delete the longer named one. Jameboy 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per Grutness. aLii 11:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per Grutness. Olborne 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers. It may be ten seconds' work, but it's lifetime's dream. Btw, Lineker would be included in the cat and we have FA Cup Final which lists all the scorers. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Professional wrestling venues

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestling venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:WrestleMania venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Professional wrestling companies are generally touring entertainment companies. Hence they frequently appear at many venues, at least within their home countries. Any facility that can host a professional wrestling company can probably host many other events as well (concerts, soprts events, circus performances, etc), so being a professional wrestling venue is not a defining characteristic for these facilities. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Wrestlemania venues are already listed in the main Wrestlemania article and I can't imagine waht legitimate article could housea list of pro wrestling venues, so don't listify. Otto4711 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost every venue that hosts professional also hosts various other events. WrestleMania is the biggest event for WWE, but WWE is the only company that really recognizes it as a huge event. So, it shouldn't have its own category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any indoor arena can host wrestling, and we have category:Indoor arenas to group them together. AshbyJnr 16:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Murdered people with disabilities

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

The result of the debate was delete: there was a suggestion that an encyclopaedia article on the subject would be a much better approach. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered people with disabilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the intersection of "murdered" and "disabled" is not significant enough to warrant its own category. Otto4711 09:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This just seems like an arbitrary intersection. The murder of a disabled person should be treated no differently than the murder of a non-disabled person. Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. --Cat out 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: many people have been killed precisely because they are disabled, e.g. Katie McCarron, Tracy Latimer, Chelsea Craig, etc. etc., this is an important phenomenon which should be documented. Rosemary Amey 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The examples that you give don't have articles on the victim, but are instead articles on the murderer. (Unless I missed one) There are some disabled people who were murdered because they were seen as "easy targets", but I'm not sure there's enough disabled people killed for their disability to be worth a category. An exception is Action T4, which is indeed about targeted killing of the disabled, but Category:Action T4 seems to deal with this better. Otherwise most names here seem to be those who murdered disabled people or people whose murder didn't relate in any way to their disability(I am disabled myself, as mentioned elsewhere, and I'm actually not voting.)--T. Anthony 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT the point of categories however. --Cat out 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it shows that the category is not arbitrary. Rosemary Amey 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe an article should be written on this topic instead of using a category. This category says nothing about why the disabled people were murdered, which is apparently very important. Moreover, as the category currently stands, murdered disabled people would be included regardless of whether the murders were connected to the victims' disabilities. Dr. Submillimeter 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Dr. S. -- an article is very important, but categories aren't the right way to do this. An article is going to be able to lay out the connections (& disputes about connections) between eugenics-based movements as in Nazi Germany, euthanasia movements, and individual cases. A category is going to sweep too broadly and pick up all members of these disparate phenomena. --lquilter 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. Sub., though an article on the subject might be useful. Coemgenus 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tremendous issue today, and with every Terry Schiavo or what not people will be looking for NPOV information on various people. When I saw this was a category I read each article, and then was patiently but (is eagerly the right word) waiting for more articles like this. I'm new and this is my first delete/keep discussion so I may not be able to articulate it as well, but I vote keep. This is information that the public deserves to have access to and it is worthy of a category. The choice to delete it is making a concious decision to take this type of knowledge out of the type of amazing public access that Wikipedia provides and thus takes such type of knowledge away from the public. I know I know, not a crime (on wikipedia) but not a thing to aspire to. Ara Pelodi 19:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are told nowadays that one person in three or four has a disability, which makes this intersection meaninglessly broad. Cloachland 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, folicaly challenged (bald) people also have that disability. --Cat out 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely arbitrary. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitrary intersection. Doczilla 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television program cancellations by year
Category:Television program cancellations by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - there is an extensive system of sub-cats under this parent cat. I'd rather not within this nom do the work of listing every single one of those cats but if i have to I can if it's needed for this nom to go forward. Categorizing TV shows based on the year they went off the air strikes me as completely bizarre. There is no relationship between most if not all of the series so categorized. Otto4711 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this category is the counterpart to Category:Television program debuts by year and its subcats. These categories are a "lifespan" type of categorisation, no more "completely bizarre" than well-established and accepted category chains such as Category:Births by year/Category:Deaths by year or Category:Establishments by year/Category:Disestablishments by year. There is also no relationship between most if not all people categorised in, say, Category:2007 deaths, yet those categories are accepted. Seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT CfD nom. Dl2000 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, it's not a question of whether I like it or not. It's a question of that I don't see the point of it. Now that the point has been explained, I still don't see that the categories are necessary. Otto4711 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is relevant to the subject and strictly defined. In this case a category serves the exact same function as a list: collating information that does not need annotation. Additionally, if fully populated the cats would generate some intrinsic information not found in the relevant articles, such as general trends in viewing tastes. — J Greb 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the counterpart to television program debut categories. Tim! 10:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is "cancellation" the right term for this category? For some series, the people producing the shows decided to discontinue production, which is distinctly different from having a show cancelled by a network. Dr. Submillimeter 13:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Note this quote from the top category page in question (Category:Television program cancellations by year): "These programs are listed regardless of whether the cancellation decisions were made by the broadcasters or the producers." - therefore the category was defined to include producer-cancelled shows as well as the usual broadcaster-cancelled ones. However, this particular discussion is not to determine a category rename. Dl2000 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the anaologous to the establishment/disestablishment by year categories for organizations, or the birth/death categories for people. Generally speaking it's a good idea for articles to have a category for the year of creation of the subject, and also a category for the year of dissolution/death/cancellation/destruction. Dugwiki 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just as a hypothetical use for these categories for television series, it would be interesting for example to compare all the series that were cancelled in a particular year and try and identify possible trends. For example, it would be interesting to see if many series in a particular genre, such as game shows or sci-fi series, were cancelled in the same year, as it would indicate a possible shift in network thinking or fan preference. Knowing all the shows that ended in a particular year could be a good jumping off point for researching how and why shows get cancelled and analyzing possible cyclical trends in programming. Dugwiki 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above reasons. NorthernThunder 10:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. These cats serve a useful navigation function. However, I think all cats should be renamed, though not for now. Not every television program ends in "cancellation". A show is "cancelled" only if it is pulled off the air by the network, not by its producers, which is how most successful series come to an end. Right now, it would take a lot of effort to change this from a CFD to a CFR, with little chance of achieving consensus either way. So if these cats are kept, I'll try to gauge consensus on the appropriate talk pages and, if appropriate, nominate the pages for renaming. szyslak (t, c) 02:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Settlements in Kurdistan
Category:Cities in Kurdistan
Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan
Category:Villages in Kurdistan
Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan
Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (3 articles 3 sub categories)
Category:Cities in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (19 articles 1 sub category)
Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (6 articles)

Category:Villages in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (2 articles)
Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (1 article)
For a similar reasons and logic as WP:Cfd/Log/2007 Feb 2 nom...
We do not categorize settlements by geographic region (Kurdistan is a mere geographic region according to the Wikipedia article). York is not categorized to be in Europe even though it clearly is. The current pattern also follows the Category:Settlements in the United States, Category:Cities by country, Category:Towns by country, Category:Villages by country format which is exclusively used for countries.
The categories were very recently created without a proper discussion.
See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)
--Cat out 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add... as a geographic region Kurdistan lacks defined borders and sometimes it's very existence is disputed. --Cat out 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are few maps I have found on the net drawing borders of [proposed] Kurdistan borders
This is one map: http://www.kurdmedia.com/pix/kurdistan_map3b.jpg which redraws a few other borders such as expanding Greece's borders. Turkey ceases to exist.

Here is another: http://thethirdplanet.htmlplanet.com/images/kurmap.jpg

Another: http://www.irc-online.org/selfdetermine/images/kurd-map_color_country-names.gif

And another drawn by a retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: Image:Ralph Peters solution to Mideast.jpg . It was actually published in Armed Forces Journal. Two articles explaining that controversy (of international scale): [4] [5].

I believe the categories...
...fail to follow our existing Wikipedia categorization scheme as I explained earlier. No other categorization remotely similar exists.

...do not and cannot have a reliable inclusion criteria as no agreement on borders exist as demonstrated on the randomly linked maps. A Google search can display a greater variety.

...advocates Kurdish nationalism. A clear WP:NOT IMHO. I would like to make one thing clear. If there was a Kurdistan claiming to be independent, I would have no problem with these categories.

--Cat out 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:POINT. --Mais oui! 08:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT covers categorization scheme? --Cat out 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT covers every aspect of Wikipedia, including categorisation. --Mais oui! 08:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following, what was the precise reason for your vote mais oui!? If you are saying that the nominations are per POINT (I am assuming that's the case - correct me if I am wrong), then it is also established that the underlying arguments cannot be affected by the supposed motivations of the nominator. Some thing could have been nominated by POINT, but might be legitimate all the same, right? As far as these categories are concerned, there are serious issues with the criteria for inclusion about articles into Cat:Kurdistan. Baristarim 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it apply here? --Cat out 08:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: goes against current semi-standard. It would be more useful to expand the short section about geography of Kurdistan or create a leaf article what is supposed to became part of independent Kurdistan. Pavel Vozenilek 11:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is a geographic region, not a country. See how York is not tagged with a geographic region.
We do not base categorization based on whats "supposed" to happen. All of Europe was "supposed" to be Soviet/Nazi territory if you think about it. Also Kurdistan does not claim to be a country.
--Cat out 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Cat out 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Natural subcategories of higher categories. Osomec 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Above 'keeps' have good points. These reasonable categories. Especialy the cities.--Diyarbakir 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except Kurdistan doesn't claim to be independent. We do not claim Kurdistan is independent either on our wikipedia article. So why do we treat it like an independent country and not a geographic region? --Cat out 09:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell us your inclusion criteria (if it exists at all). --Cat out 09:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best option is to rename to "___ that identify as being part of Kurdistan" because the current naming scheme is typical of countries and technically Kurdistan is part of other countries. But really I'm ignorant on this whole issue... —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion? --Cat out 15:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to rename the category, too. It's not a subjective inclusion, as it is (probably) verifiable. –mysid☎ 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:Villages in Silesia. Current practice is to use contemporary national boundaries. This should not be lightly departed from, not without compelling reasoning—otherwise we end up with overlap and POV issues. Kurdistan is not a nation, has no international recognition as one, and is uncertain in size/scope. As such it is not the proper subject of this sort of category.
Xdamr^talk 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as they're all valid categories for cities & villages belonging to a particular region. Kurdistan is an internationally recognized region that u can find in 90% of all atlases & dictionaries & encyclopedias. Soapyyy 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xdamr. There have been similar discussions about this in Wikiproject Countries and many concerned pages, and it is frowned upon to denote country characteristics and categorization schemes to unofficial entities, let alone regions (which is the case for Kurdistan - it is not even a breakaway state). That's why WikiProject Countries templates are not present in the articles of breakaway states, and that's why the stubs for such entities have been deleted (some speedily) in the past. There is no TRNC-stub for example. Contrary to what has been said, those are not natural subcategories of higher categories - there are very legitimate academic disputes concerning the criteria for inclusion of articles into Cat:Kurdistan. Please do not go down the road of trying to give a shoulder to a perceivedly "opressed" entity: the criteria for inclusion into cat:Kurdistan is still very vague, and also, contrary to what has been said right above, Kurdistan is not an internationally recognized region: it is present in only certain atlases and encyclopedias and nearly all of them give wildly varying borders to the point that people can become more confused than informed if they put all those atlases before them. Baristarim 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you put 'oppressed' between quotation marks says a lot about on which side of this issue you stand. Anyways, no, it's not only 'certain' atlases, it's all major languages' dictionaries (oxford english dictionary, french larousse dictionary, etc..) and all major atlases. Many sites of the European Union have Kurdistan on their maps. Soapyyy 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not assume please. All those dictionaries and atlases where it is present will also tell you that its borders are extremely vague. There is already a category at Kurdish inhabited regions. If Kurdistan is a geographic region (albeit vague) like Anatolia etc, it shouldn't have a country like category structure. There are no cats like "Cities in Anatolia" or "Politics of Anatolia" either.Baristarim 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no political parties in Anatolia, and no people who wants the independance of Anatolia. Can you deny that there are politics in Kurdistan? What is PKK, KDP and PUK? Aren't they Kurdish political parties? Soapyyy 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those politics take place primarily in the context of their national politics, in the case of Iraq, it is split between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq at a national level. I mean, how about creating the country first then Wikipedia categories rather than the other way around? Obviously the latter is easier I suppose :)) Baristarim 07:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. They don't take place only in the context of nation-state politics : PKK's camp is in Southern Kurdistan (northern Iraq), and there have been numerous ideological conflicts between the different Kurdish parties over the years, regardless of borders. There is indeed a distinct Kurdish political scene, in which all Kurdish parties play, along with their role in the political scene of the various countries Kurds currently depend from. You need to understand, the point is not whether we're trying to create a country or not. This is not on an encyclopedia that we're gonna do that. The point is to give readers accurate informations about Kurdistan, and categories help doing that. You can't change the fact that for lots of Kurds, Diyarbekir is the capital of Kurdistan and not just 'the 2nd largest city in south-eastern Anatolia'. And that is why both point of views need to be reflected in order to have a neutral article. Soapyyy 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just like to note that, as can be seen in the summary of the nomination, the category 'Cities in Turkish Kurdistan' contained 6 articles when it was nominated, and that user Baristarim has since then decided without any prior discussion to remove the category template from all articles where it was present. Does this really contribute to a healthy debate on this issue? Soapyyy 06:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why were they added in the first place? This issue was discussed many times, and as such there is already a category at Kurdish inhabited regions. Please do not make this personal and stick to the topic. Baristarim 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I the one making this personal? Why would you run around and delete all the articles off the category, when there's an ongoing discussion about it? Soapyyy 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete any articles. There were only six articles, and they already had the "Kurdish inhabited regions" cat. It's not as if I split the Red Sea in two you know :) Baristarim 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't delete anything, I said you took them off the category. I get your point, I just suggested it would have been fair to wait for the result of this debate. Soapyyy 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is indeed usefull with sub-categories to the very broad Category:Kurdistan and will also help sort articles on the geography of Turkey. Bertilvidet 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How? Geography of Turkey category already has a fully developed standard categorization systems that covers the whole country down to the smallest village. These won't help with that at all. Still the WP:V argument stands: what is the criteria for inclusion, and in what cases are any of cities considered to be in the "Turkish Kurdistan"? Bertil, let's stop going around in circles - the real argument is that there are those who would like to see that happen when it currently doesn't exist: there is not much Wikipedia can do if it doesn't already exist. How about creating the country first then the Wikipedia categories? If Kurdistan is a geographical region, then how come there are no cats like "Cities in Anatolia" even though Anatolia is defined with hundred times more accuracy than Kurdistan, and without any disputes? I find this really unacademic - create the country first, then we will worry about its organization :)) Otherwise it is nothing but a waste of everyone's time. Baristarim 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see difference between Anatolians and Kurds, this is your and Turkey's big problem and source of troubles. `'mikka 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the lame high-school rhetoric someplace else. I am aware of the world, don't worry. That is exactly the reason why I say that there are huge WP:V issues related to this category. "Kurdistan" is not as clear as you pretend it to be: that region has been home to many peoples for millenia including the Assyrians, Persians, Armenians, Turks, Arabs etc - that's why there is a serious academic dispute as to its borders. It is not lame high-school rhetoric that will change that. It is not my "big problem", where did that come from? It is nothing but pure orientalism to treat a specific nationality (in this case Turks) as uneducated cave-dwellers. Joke is not on me thought, just fyi. Baristarim 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a cat at "Kurdish inhabited regions" that makes sense. That's the point.. Baristarim 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. useful subcategory. `'mikka 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, WP:V issues that have been mentioned have not been addressed. There is already a cat at "Kurdish inhabited regions" - don't just vote for kicks and with misoriented self-righteousness. Gees... Baristarim 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; There is no any area/region which called as "Kurdistan" in geograpy of Turkey. No make sense what google search is in this and smilar cases. This is a political issue and cannot be solved here. Name "Kurdistan" include meaning of independency/country.There is no like a country now. If somebody is willing to have independency, here is no correct place to gain independence.These categories -exactly- will create additional disputes and edit/rv wars.Must^TC 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment;All these categories are currently include some cities and willages which are not in Turkey, except one village in Mardin.Also this village-article include unreferenced info.RegardsMust^TC 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I quote Wikipedia:Categories#Some_general_guidelines #8: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." --Cat out 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep York is in Category:North Yorkshire and Category:Cities in Yorkshire; both of which imply being in Europe. No one has Category:Cities in Europe because it is comprised of the various subcats of Category:Cities by country, but it were, York would still be in the local category, not the supercat. So here, these provide information. It would probably be rational to use these only, as with the Kurdish Autonomous Region, the Kurdishness is consensus; but that's a problem for the editors of Kirkuk, not a reason for deletion. (A separate nomination for Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan arguing that all of Turkish Kurdistan falls in this hazy zone, should be accompanied by evidence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic Church by country

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholicism in Brazil

Category:Roman Catholicism in Korea

Category:Roman Catholicism in Norway

Category:Catholic Church in Thailand

Rename all to Roman Catholic Church in Foo, convention of Category:Roman Catholic Church by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 14:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistancy. Coemgenus 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency. Mairi 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former countries in North America
Propose renaming Category:Former countries in North America to Category:Former political entities in North America

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category is a misnomer. Very few of the entries in this category were ever "countries"; the vast majority were mostly colonies or other similar dependent territories. It had appeared that the simpler task would have been to have edited the various articles to remove them from the category, but many of the articles here appear because of a number of esoteric templates. To remove many of these entries would require much more template editing than article editing, but the simplest thing to do is to apply a much more appropriate name. Agent 86 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the substantive issues, I would suggest that if the category is renamed then the appropriate word choice may be "defunct" rather than "former." Otto4711 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Former" is preferable to "defunct". Osomec 14:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to previous topical discussion here November/December 2006. This proposal is a variation on the same theme, but limited to a single category. See also Category talk:Former countries in North America. -- Domino theory 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prior discussion had a different perspective than this one. The key issue with this discussion is that the category is a misnomer - most of the entries were never "countries". It seems that the other discussion wanted to expand the categories so as to include the sub-sets of countries. Agent 86 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divide out Category:Former Canadian provinces; the rest are almost entirely former countries, or at least with an obvious claim to be countries. Alta California should be replaced by Bear Flag Republic; and there may be a few other cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Playboy Cyber Club
Category:Playboy Cyber Club into Category:Playboy
Merge - We have previously deleted and salted Playboy Cyber Girls (edit - we D&S'ed Playboy Cyber Girls, not Club) and this seems like sort of a way around that. Merge to the parent cat. Otto4711 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this was created to get around the D&S. This is a useful category that is more than a year old. The online business is a growing and separate part of the business. TonyTheTiger 20:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's no article to go with this category. It might not have been intended to "get around" the deletion, but then it is an overlooked remnant of that deletion. — coelacan talk — 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I disagree with your conclusion, obviously, but it's based on a false premise. Playboy Cyber Club does exist. Otto4711 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as requested. Postlebury 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Carpenters (Carpenters album)

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a recreation, in category form, of the Carpenters article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Songs are currently not categorized by album. Moreover, given that some songs may appear in an original release album and several "greatest hist" compilations, it does not seem appropriate to categorize songs by album. Dr. Submillimeter 10:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. S. Category:The Carpenters songs (which currently does contain all of these song articles) and the track listing in the album's article are sufficient. ×Meegs 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doczilla 01:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above and just a comment that the CfD template was temporarily removed by an anon. I restored it. GassyGuy 22:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mario antagonists
Category:Nintendo antagonists
Category:Metroid antagonists
Category:Legend of Zelda antagonists
Category:Square Enix antagonists
Category:Final Fantasy antagonists
Category:Mega Man antagonists
Category:Mario antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Nintendo antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Metroid antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Legend of Zelda antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Square Enix antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Final Fantasy antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mega Man antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete preferably speedy - category was one of several created by editor Cosmetor in violation of WP:POINT because s/he is upset with the consensus noted here and here and here and here and here and here and here among other places that words like "hero" and "villain" in category and article titles are undesirable. I would contend that this is a backdoor effort to subvert that consensus. Regardless of the editor's motives, I contend that "antagonist" is no better than "villain" and allowing the categories to stand opens the door back up to recreating all the deleted "villain" categories under a slightly different name but with all the attendant problems. We have already deleted Fictional antagonists for this reason. Otto4711 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a "backdoor" to "subvert" your consensus. It is a fix to the only problem you had with "villain" categories. "Antagonist" has a clear, objective, definition. As a matter of fact, you have violated Wikipedia's principle to "assume good faith". Cosmetor 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your "antagonist is no better than villain", it is in fact a much more objective word. It refers to a character who opposes the protagonist of a story (which, in the case of video games, means the player) and, unlike "villain" makes no moral judgements. The terms is totally objective. Cosmetor 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]
As I have already noted in this very nomination, the category for "fictional antagonists" was deleted. Your reasoning has been rejected and I do not find your "yes it is, no it isn't" style of argumentation particularly persuasive. Otto4711 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is wrong. "Antagonist" is completely different from "villain". Most importantly, it is objectively defined. Cosmetor 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Fictional_antagonists. Otto4711 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some might say that characters who change over the course of a story might fit into a different category. They fit into both categories. The story in which they fit into one category was written, and it remains written even if other stories change them. For example, K. Rool has, in different games, been a king, pirate and scientist; this means he fits into the "Fictional kings", "Fictional pirates", and "Fictional scientists" categories. Cosmetor 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is pretty much exactly why the consensus to delete these categories formed. To drag out the same examples again, Iago (Aladdin) was a "villain" or "antagonist" in the first film but then became a "hero" or "protagonist" in the subsequent TV series and sequel film. It is ridiculous to categorize him as both a "hero" and a "villain" or as both a "protagonist" and an "antagonist." Other examples: Magneto, Emma Frost and Jean Grey, a few among the many, many characters who have switched from being "heroes"/"protagonists" to "villains/antagonists" in their histories. It's ridiculous to categorize them in diametrically opposing categories. Namor switched back and forth almost from one issue to the next; is he a hero, a villain, a protagonist, an antagonist, all of the above? Should he have two or four different categories when one ("character") will suffice? What about Galactus who operates on a level of morality and ethics far beyond human comprehension, yet who as written is a fundamental necessity of the universe? Is he a hero? A villain? An antagonist? A protagonist? All of the above? None of the above? Who decides? You? Me? Otto4711 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to comment on your additional comment, whether or not a character is a king, a pirate or a scientist is a matter of objective fact. Either someone is a king or he isn't. Deciding that someone is a "villain" or an "antagonist" requires that one draws a conclusion that can be avoided by simply categorizing them as "characters." Otto4711 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction is static. Donkey Kong Country 2 will always have pirates in it, even though he's not a pirate anymore in other games, with emphasis on "other". It is not in any way ridiculous to categorize a fictional character based on every state that he or she has been in, because that would be the most accurate thing to do. For instance, say that Billy Jones has a job as a police officer at the beginning of his game, then gets fired and becomes a private detective; that would mean he counts as both a "police officer" and a "private detective". Cosmetor 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations can be objectively defined. "Antagonist" can't be. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is a moot point, though, because it's only arguing about what category individual characters fall into. We're arguing about whether the categories should exist at all, and I think they should, because they are objective. "Antagonist", unlike "villain", has an objective definition in this case. It refers to someone who opposes the main character(s) of a game, which are the playable character(s). There was subjectivity in the word "villain", but there's none here. Cosmetor 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Antagonist" is not objectively defined because it depends on the comparison of the character in question to another character. Banshee and Black Tom Cassidy are mutually antagonistic; should they both be categorized as antagonists? The player characters of these video games are antagonistic toward the so-called "villains" so by your logic they should both be in the antagonists category. And speaking of video games, what about multi-player games where the player characters oppose each other. That makes them both "antagonists" by your definition. It's absurd. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An antagonist is defined as someone who opposes the "protagonist", which in a video game would be the playable character. The category's definition is objective. As for multiplayer games, that's another "case-by-case" thing. Also, stop bringing up comic books; this debate is specific to video games, where the "protagonist" is clearly defined. Cosmetor 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is not specific to video games because the category that would be the parent to this category, Fictional antagonists, has been deleted. Allowing these categories allows for creation of comic book antagonists, film antagonists, XYZ antagonists and so on so it is relevant to address the larger ramifications of the categories. Otto4711 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are, in fact, only talking about video games at the moment, where we can objectively identify a protagonist and thus objectively identify an antagonist. It's simply true that the category is objective. If there are other cases where it would not be objective, those are different. Cosmetor 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in those cases where two playable characters can compete against each other, the antagonist is...? Otto4711 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If an administrator has voiced approval of your actions then that admnistrator needs to familiarize himself with the text of the CfD tag. The tag specifically instructs editors not to empty categories while the CfD is in progress. By doing what you did, assuming these categories don't survive, you've generated extra work for the administrators. Otto4711 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely in the case of articles which actually have "villain" or "antagonist" in the title this is appropriate, because they certainly do take an antagonistic role in the context of the work discussed (e.g. List of non-Kremling Donkey Kong enemies). I strongly suggest we keep these categories for this purpose. Glancing at the old "Fictional antagonists" discussion you mentioned, the main reason it was deleted appears to have been because it was too broad. "Mega Man Antagonists" is far more specific. RobbieG 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Labeling characters as "protagonists" and "antagonists" generally is not useful. (Can users play "antagonist" characters in some games?) Dr. Submillimeter 09:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - particularly with non-interactive works like books and films, labelling antagonists is, for the majority of cases, very useful indeed. For example, in the Harry Potter series, many characters exist solely to oppose the protagonists, such as Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy. In fiction with more mature plotlines villains are less easy to pick out, but the same thing can be observed. For example, in Of Mice and Men, Curley plays the role of antagonist. Antagonists don't have to be villains, either. In Macbeth, Macduff is arguably more sympathetic than Macbeth, but Macduff still fulfils the role of an antagonist.

Some video games also allow for this sort of thing. For example, in The Legend of Zelda, it is probably controversial to label races like the Gerudo, who are used as generic villains, as antagonists, because there are also members of the race who do not fulfil the role of antagonist. On the other hand, Ganondorf, Vaati, the Majora's Mask and Zant are unquestionably antagonists in the games they appear in (Super Smash Bros. Melee being non-canonical). Therefore, I see no problem with the existence of the category. RobbieG 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not useful? It gives the reader information and helps him find related articles. Cosmetor 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent categories (not delete). I agree that no categories should take a position on the villainous or antagonistic nature of the character, but the articles will need homes.--Mike Selinker 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Taking a position"? This is an objective definition, not a POV issue. Cosmetor 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be a biased POV if we labelled a character as a "villain", but for the reasons I explained above, "antagonist" is an objective label. It describes a particular literary technique. Of course, on it's own, the category "Fictional antagonists" would be far too broad, but in appropriate subcategories, like those discussed here, there shouldn't be a problem. RobbieG 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent cats We should't categorize by "antagonists", "protaginists" or any other things like that. If I was a fan of Bowser, and wanted him to kill Mario, wouldn't that make Mario the antagonist? This category is biased and POV on what an antagonist is, because all people opinions could be different. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The player character is the protagonist of any game, based solely on his status as the player character. Even if you sympathized with the antagonist, he would still be the antagonist. It's true that "hero" and "villain" are subjective, but -tagonist is not, at least when it comes to video games. Cosmetor 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, in a multi-player game where the players battle each other, which is the "antagonist"? Otto4711 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We have extensive precedent for deleting antagonist categories. Even if it's more clear in a video game than in some sources, any antagonist categories lead to a proliferation of such categories which are rarely clearcut. Doczilla 01:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the roles are clear in video games makes video games an exception. Even if you think it would lead to other categories being made that should not exist, that has no effect on whether these categories should exist. Cosmetor 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, yes it does, because the existence of a "Mega Man antagonists" category opens the door to an antagonist category for any and every other fictional character, so it's smart to discuss the implications of such a category scheme before widespread implementation. Look at the mess that's been caused by the various "TV show actors" categories and then decide whether talking about this beforehand is a good idea.

I'm curious as to why you have not answered when I've asked repeatedly about classifying characters in multi-player games. Otto4711 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emphasize the difference between the inappropriate categories you are speaking of and the ones being discussed here. The latter is entirely objective;you say they "open the doors" for subjective categories, but their objectivity is a significant difference, so they really don't. The standard is that "antagonist" is only usable if it can be objectively defined. Cosmetor 06:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't split up comments by posting new ones in the middle of them. I have relocated the remainder of my comment back with the beginning of it. As for your emphasis on these categories and your reluctance to address the broader implications of them, I don't understand it. And I continue to disagree that "antagonist" can be 100% objectively defined as you insist. Otto4711 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antagonist is a literary term. Look it up. I assume you already know that "protagonist" means the character the work is told from the viewpoint of. Well, the antagonist is the main opponent to the protagonist. Video games are not at all unique in this respect. In Macbeth, Macduff is the antagonist, despite not being all that villainous. Antagonists need not be evil. In fact, they don't need to be sentient - natural disasters can be antagonists in certain situations.
Many video games make the distinction easy to recognise, because you control the protagonist, so the antagonists are the ones opposing you. Video games where you can control either character are less easy to categorise. For example, in Sonic Adventure 2, it would not be objective to class either Sonic or Shadow as an antagonist, but there would be nothing wrong with labelling the Biolizard as an antagonist, because that's all it's there for. For plot reasons, Guardian Units of Nations, from the same game, are also antagonists, even though they are "the good guys," because they oppose the protagonists. There are literary examples that are equally ambiguous - for example, one could argue that in Moby Dick, both Captain Ahab and the whale are arguably antagonists. In the majority of cases however, antagonists are much more straightforward to recognise.
It is true that if somebody decided to view Harry Potter as a villain and Draco Malfoy as a hero, then from that person's viewpoint Harry would be an antagonist. However, as the books are told from Harry's POV, that is clearly not what Rowling intended. In other words, it's an aberrant reading, and therefore not canon. I could watch Lost and be convinced that the island is an alien spaceship, but we wouldn't put an article on the said island in the "fictional alien spacecraft" category, because that's not what the writers intended. Likewise, I could read the Sherlock Holmes books and become convinced that Professor Moriarty is the protagonist and is being victimised by a cocaine-crazed Holmes. I'd be wrong, however, because that's not how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote it. He wrote the stories with a clearly specified protagonist. Fact. There can be no two POVs about it. RobbieG 12:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then you have stories like A Study in Emerald in which Moriarty is the protagonist, which makes Sherlock Holmes the antagonist and thus subject to inclusion in an antagonist category. Or those Next Gen episodes where it can be reasonably argued that Moriarty is the protagonist, which potentially leads to the listing of the crew of the Enterprise-D in the antagonists. ~~And to drag this once again back to video games, what about multi-player games in which two or more playable characters oppose each other? Do they both get listed as "antagonists"?~~ The fact that this level of argument is even happening over the categories in my view serves as support for not having them. Better to just use the completely factual and completely neutral word "characters" and leave it to the articles to set forth the roles the characters play. Otto4711 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one final point, the fact that you acknowledge that there is potential ambiguity in naming the playable characters in multi-player games lends more support to the notion of eliminating these categories. You may not think that Sonic and Shadow should be listed in the antagonist category, but what about the editor who thinks that they should be? Why is your view on it superior to that editor's, or his/hers to yours? Why not, again, avoid the entire issue and simply categorize them as "characters"? Otto4711 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, in what story are the crew of the Enterprise-D antagonists? I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I thought the story was always told from their point of view, making them protagonists. I'd also say that although anyone who decided that either Sonic or Shadow was an antagonist in Sonic Adventure 2 would be biased, both can be objectively classed as protagonists because they are both playable characters. Of course, Mario is the protagonist of many games, but is also an unplayable antagonist in Donkey Kong Junior, so he'd fit into both categories.
I'm not saying there aren't characters who can't be categorised either way (in fact, I know there are - Albus Dumbledore, Luna Lovegood, and Minerva McGonagall aren't protagonists in the Harry Potter books, but they don't oppose Harry either). However, when the technique of creating an antagonist is used, I see no reason not to categorise this.
In order to make things slightly simpler, I think we should ignore fan fiction (it's not generally notable). Also, although A Study in Emerald is a notable work which does arguably feature Holmes as an antagonist and Moriarty as protagonist, the characters are not identified as being such. So although "Rache" is an antagonist and the detective from A Study in Emerald is a protagonist, Moriarty is an antagonist, and Holmes a protagonist. Of course, if a work treated explicitly named Holmes and Moriarty as antagonist and protagonist respectively, then they would fit into two categories. What would be wrong with that? RobbieG 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be wrong with it is that it's absurd to list the same character in contradictory categories. Since as you note there can be disagreement over whether certain playable characters should be classed as antagonists (and there's no indication that your "bias" toward not calling them antagonists is any more valid than the hypothetical other editor's "bias" toward doing so) the best solution remains not to use words that engender any ambiguity. There is no question that a character in a video game is a "character" so that is the most appropriate way to categorize.

If you don't care for the Moriarty example in relation to Next Gen, consider instead Data. In one episode Data hijacked the Enterprise. In another multiple holographic Datas menaced Worf and his son. In a two-parter he teamed with his brother Lore and tortured Geordi LaForge. These are the acts of an "antagonist" in that he acted in opposition to the people you identify as protagonists. Should he be in the antagonist category, despite being a major protagonistic category through the remainder of the series? Should Captain Picard be categorized as an antagonist because he was turned into Locutus for two episodes? His "antagonism" led to the events that formed the backstory of DS:9, should he be listed as an "antagonist" of Benjamin Sisko? Should Kirk be listed as an antagonist of the Romulan Commander in Balance of Terror who was by your definition ("the story is told from their point of view") a "protagonist" in that episode if the RC had an article? Why or why not categorize as I've said in these cases, and how are your reasons not indicative of the POV problems inherent in the categories? Why not avoid the whole problem and leave the characters as "characters"? Otto4711 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a follow up on RobbieG's sugestion to "look it up". While I think that the Wiktionary is a nice place to start, lets look at a selection of other on-line dictionaries:
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition: Primary definition: "one that contends with or opposes another"

Encarta: Primary definition: "somebody or something opposing or in conflict with another"

AskOxfor.com: Primary definition: "an open opponent or enemy"

Cambridge Dictionaries Online: Primary definition: "an open opponent or enemy"

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition: Primary definition: "an open opponent or enemy"

Ultralinga Online Dictionary: Primary definition: "An adversary; especially one who antagonizes regularly, over a long period of time"

The predominant theme is "one in opposition to another". No qualifiers, no "author's intent", cut-and-dried, non-POV. By that, if a cat is listed by work or publisher, then all active characters are antagonists since they will invariable act against other characters. Cats listed by character would include all other characters that have worked against the "Name" and all characters the "Name" has worked against. Limiting them by any means calls for a judgment call, making it POV. — J Greb 21:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to J Greb's comment, a term can have multiple definitions, and the one I am using refers to a specific literary technique. You might just as well argue that the term "mock" cannot be used to describe something as artificial because it also means to jeer, or that the verb "to lie" cannot be used to say someone is on their back because it also means telling untruths. I am using the word "antagonist" in the sense of Wiktionary definition 2, "The main source of conflict in a story." Similarly, Encarta's second definition is "character in conflict with hero: a major character in a book, play, or movie whose values or behavior are in conflict with those of the protagonist or hero," while the American Heritage definition 2 is "The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama." That is a neutral definition.
In response to Otto4711 - well, you made a lot of points, so I'm going to address each point seperately.
1. "It's absurd to list the same character in contradictory categories." Why is it absurd to class someone as both protagonist and antagonist? If a character appears in more than one work of fiction, they can have more than one role. It makes perfect sense, if you bear in mind that fiction is static, and that the characters are not real people, but merely creations of the writer that exist only for the story. Therefore it isn't a contradiction at all.
2. "There's no indication that your "bias" toward not calling them antagonists is any more valid than the hypothetical other editor's "bias" toward doing so." I hadn't thought of that as a bias, I was thinking that if we can't prove they're antagonists, it's best not to label them as such. It's like if we didn't know for certain that a guy was a terrorist then we shouldn't categorise him as one. If you don't think that can be applied in this situation, then I guess the most neutral alternative would be to class both Sonic and Shadow as antagonists. In fact, given Cosmetor's reasoning that an antagonist in a game is "someone who opposes the main character(s) of a game, which are the playable character(s)," that's probably the best option.
3. From "In one episode Data hijacked the Enterprise..." to "...in that episode if the RC had an article." Here I think we need to do something us Wikipedia editors seem to struggle with, which is to use our common sense. In a long running show like Star Trek, of course the writers are going to try some unusual things. We may have to decide how to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. For example, I don't know anything about Star Trek, but why did Data hijack the Enterprise? Was the show still partly from his POV? Was he himself the antagonist, or was the antagonist some other villain character, like an alien of sorts? Was the antagonist in fact something inanimate or abstract - a computer virus, perhaps, or a mechanical fault? Either way, however, Data, Kirk and Picard are unquestionably protagonists for most of the time. I think whether any of them can be considered an antagonist or not is something for the people at the Star Trek WikiProject to decide.
4. "Why not avoid the whole problem and leave the characters as "characters"?" That wouldn't be very specific, though, would it? We need subcategories to better define characters. We've discussed all sorts of awkward subversions of the traditional rules here, but the fact remains that there are plenty of characters who can be objectively categorised as "antagonists." So, why categorise them? To quote from Wikipedia:Categorization, "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." Antagonist categories are quite useful if someone is interested in finding out about antagonists in literature. Why not leave the characters as characters? Because they can be more. They can be lawyers, and cleaners, and penguins, and extraterrestrials, and crimelords, and feminists and, yes, protagonists and antagonists. RobbieG 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few things...
You are making an assumption, largely held or not, to apply a literary term to all entertainment. In the scheme of things I'll agree that is a very, very minor thing since other forms narrative entertainment, even video games, can be translated in to book format. I can see how it can be a quibble point for some.

You are walking into a bigger problem when relying on definitions using therms such as "principle character" and "major character", let alone "hero". At this point consensus holds that those terms are inherently POV. While consensus can change, it would have to change for those terms first for a category strongly dependent on them to survive let alone go unchallenged.

Common sense issues are two fold. Especially in light of an aspect of discussion that Wikipedia, IIUC, frowns upon but fundamentally uses: Precedent. Once something is done, no mater how much the concept of "each article/list/category/template must be evaluated on its own merits" is extolled, that act is used as template and reason for like items to be made or deleted. The questions that need to be asked here are "Will editors read this as need instructions not to read the category as 'Video game characters from Series in an antagonistic relationship'?" and "Will this be used to create scores of similar categories and contribute to making the category area of some articles unusable?".

The "'Fictional Profession/Race/Nationality/Activist' equates to ' Series antagonist" is tenuous at best using your preferred definition. The former are extensions of categories used with real people the later is assigning a literary role. Common sense seems to dictate that it is reasonable to treat fictional characters as real people but not the other way round.

— J Greb 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's absurd to categorize the same character in directly opposite categories because it leads to confusion and category clutter.

2) What is the objective standard of proof that a character is an "antagonist"? Your own example demonstrates that there isn't one.

3) Yes, Picard, Kirk and Data do act as protagonists most of the time. Is that then the standard? Whether they act as protagonists "most" of the time? That doesn't seem very objective. I'm also unclear as to why the ST project would be the ones who get to decide.

4) We can classify characters as lawyers, cleaners, penguins or extraterrestrials because these things can be objectively defined. Either a character is a penguin or he isn't. "Crimelord" is a little more complicated and I don't find a current category for them. We do not categorize fictional feminists, in fact we deleted the category last September. "Feminist" has no objective test. Otto4711 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just concerned about creating a comprehensive encyclopaedia. I personally think completeness ought to take precedence over neatness in an encyclopaedia. I also think that, in a work of fiction, we should never treat the characters as real people. To do so often misses the point of the work. I would also like to repeat that there are some characters that cannot be objectively categorised as either, but that shouldn't be a problem, because in that case the characters in question "should not be put into a category." That's not bias, it's a long-standing Wikipedia guideline. If you want to argue like this for an extended period of time, I'm afraid I'm not here for an argument. If Wikipedia ends up unnavigable and a laughing stock because it's terrified of applying the sort of literary categorisation of fictional characters found in virtually all reference works, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I just think it would be preferable if that didn't happen. RobbieG 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like quite an argument over a small issue. Antagonist differentiates more than characters and in most video games it's pretty easy to define. I wouldn't have any trouble keeping the category. Bbagot 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of coverage - the protagonist is a character who is the main character, and is often closer to good than bad. An antagonist is a character who works against the protagonist. And in the situation where the protagonist is bad, or less than honorable, that is an anti-hero. Antagonist is objective, because anyone who works against the main character is an antagonist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy antagonists. No opinion on the others. Antagonist is NOT a POV term, but a well-established and omnipresent device in literarure. Zelda and FF are two trailblazing RPGs that transformed the genre, and are better literary works than many books that are printed today. Xiner (talk, email) 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lesbianism-related films
Propose renaming Category:Lesbianism-related films to Category:Lesbian-related films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is very odd, weird, doesn't convey quite what I think is intended. There is no significant difference between Lesbianism and Lesbian as it stands here. Several have agreed in a prior discussion on the LGBT studies project page that the rename is not out of order. Zue 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:LGBT-related films. I know I won't win this one but I'm putting the option out here anyway. The category was originally called "Lesbian films" and I nominated it for merger to LGBT films. Consensus formed to rename instead. I still contend that subdividing the LGBT films categories into "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" subcategories is a mistake. Otto4711 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a mistake for the subcategories to exist? I wasn't present for the previous discussions related to this topic. Thanks, Zue 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here is the previous discussion for "Lesbian films" and a parallel discussion for "Bisexual films" that got renamed to "Bisexuality-related films." My feeling was and is that splitting up LGBT films is a form of ghettoization and that it also leads to overcategorization since people tend to add both the "LGBT films" cat and the more segregated sub-cat. Otto4711 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Otto4711 makes a good point regarding overcategorization. (I'm not sure ghettoization is applicable to individual cultures w/in LGBT anyway, but if it is, ghettoization is properly avoided by redundant categorizing.) Elaborating: While there are advantages to distinguishing L, G, B, and T, the fluidity of sexual identity/practice/portrayals on film make it difficult to maintain subcategories of LGBT into the obvious constituent parts. In films, for instance, multiple characters might fit a film reasonably into any or all L/G/B/T subcategories. In other films one could argue over whether it's bi or lesbian; lesbian or trans; gay or bi. It's probably easier to just go with LGBT films; and do lists for more specificity. --lquilter 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711, Ah. Good material - all that. I think the concern of ghettoization is a valid one; however, as the categories expand, it will be useful to have these subcategories per the previous umbrella descriptions given. Personally, if I think about going into the video store and looking for an LGBT movie, I will only want to look for Lesbian ones because that's where my interests are; and while I love the guys, I'm not looking for a movie featuring a male-male relationship, just like I'm not looking for a move featuring a male-female relationship. I just find that so frustrating! Zue 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not considered a list since the category all ready existed, my goal was to simply give it a more logical name and perhaps add more movies to it. I think the distinction remains necessary. The current name, IMveryHO, is foolish and the proposed one only slightly better. I am a fan of the category name "Lesbian films" which gets 2.9 million hits on Google, whereas "Lesbian-related films" only has 1,460 hits, and "Lesbianism-related films" gets 540 hits (the first of which is Wikipedia), I proposed the "Lesbian-related films" category name in deference to previous editors and their opinions. But the list idea is sounding more appealing the more I ponder it... Hmm... Zue 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the choice between "Lesbianism-related films" and "Lesbian-related films" I'll take the latter, if the cat isn't merged. Otto4711 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. No reason to merge. People have sexual identities, not films. Osomec 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. No reason to merge. The list is more useful to many separate. TonyTheTiger 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]