Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 1

< August 31	September 2 >

September 1

Category:Fictional characters by origin

Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23#Category:Fictional characters by origin. - jc37 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters by origin

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

The result of the discussion was: merge remaining contents to Category:Lists of comics characters. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Split from the group nom above. - jc37 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rename Category:Lists of fictional characters by origin to Category:Lists of fictional characters by nationality

Rename - This is a grouping of list pages. And I agree that "origin" may be confusing, especially in comics. - jc37 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment proposed name does not match category contents. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think the best thing to do is delete this, move the comics related lists to Category:Lists of comics characters, with the possibility of creating something like a Category:Lists of super-powered comics characters, move List of fictitious Jews and List of fictional New Zealanders to Category:Lists of fictional characters and move the matrix one to Category:Lists of film characters. Hiding T 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created Category:Lists of fictional characters by nationality, as suggested above. Category:Lists of fictional character by ethnicity (or "...by race...", or both - whichever is more appropriate) should cover the rest. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. Hiding T 09:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, while I suggested that the other cats could be created, I actually prefer Hiding's solution for the rest of those in Category:Lists of fictional characters by origin: UpMerge to Category:Lists of comics characters, and Delete. - jc37 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename - These are very useful categories and I am not at all convinced by the reasons given for their deletion. I therefore nominate the categories to either be kept as is or simply renamed as has already been suggested above. However, it seems like it will be a big task to transfer all the articles to the new category. Isn't there any easier way to do this? Jagged 85 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Extraterrestrial supervillains

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extraterrestrial supervillains

Attempting to define a "supervillain" since the advent of the anti-hero, has become somewhat complicated. Also, this could potentially be a grouping of nearly every alien, since quite often aliens are "superhuman", and if they act in any way adverse to Earth (or whereever "home" is depicted in the fiction in question), then they would be a part of this group. At best, this should be a list. (Note that it's parent Category:Supervillains by origin, is up for discussion in the group nom further down this page.)

Note: The subcats are not included in this nom. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe listify, as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while normally we avoid categorizing "heroes" and "villains" both superheroes and supervillains have long been viewed as an exception. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the issue of "extraterrestrial"? (And of listification?) - jc37 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Extraterrestrial" means originating somewhere other than Earth. What's the problem? Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant concerning my comments about it in the nom. See also the discussion concerning Martians below. This one is even worse, because it includes anyone from any planet. They need merely be "superhuman", and a "villain". And since aliens in fiction are most often Earth's adversaries (the other most common theme being "benefactors"), this is not a small category by any means. Even if we split off the comics ones, this still has the potential to grow exponentially. At the very least it would likely include at least half (if not more) of all science fiction characters. - jc37 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we do what we usually do with large categories. We subdivide it, perhaps by medium or planet of origin. Otto4711 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both supervillains and extraterrestrials are accepted literary tropes. The category is also useful. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are quite a few other things which we listify (or even delete) and not categorise. And again, please explain how you feel it's more useful than a list. - jc37 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the category was useful in general, not that it would be more useful than a list. As per WP:CLN lists and categories need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would support the creation of a list regarding this topic, if others feel it is needed. I just think the category should be kept as well. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known literary tropes warrant their own categories. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd "vote" to keep Category:Blonde Superheroes? - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have long viewed hair color as a trivial characteristic, making blonde superheroes a trivial intersection. "Born on a planet other than Earth" is not a trivial characteristic. The two are not equivalent. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the above statement concerning "tropes". And "blonde" is one. So you've just proven my point for me. In other words, selecting this intersection over another simply based upon "trope", is subjective. And just out of curiosity: Why do you feel that: "Born on a planet other than Earth" is not a trivial characteristic? It is presumably trivial to those born there. Remember that this is fiction, and quite different than if we had real children born on the moon. - jc37 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The next time you meet a fictional extraterrestrial supervillain please be sure to ask it if it believes being born on its home planet is trivial or not. Me, I remain convinced that a fictional character's planet of origin, if other than Earth, is defining of the character. Otto4711 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So it's notable/defining that Darth Maul is from Iridonia or that Han Solo is from Corellia? (There are innumerable additional examples, if you'd like.) Your argument is rather subjectively terran biased. - jc37 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Atlanteans

Category:Fictional Martians

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

The result of the discussion was: keep both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Atlanteans

Category:Fictional Martians

These are fairly common themes in comics, if not all literature. However, defining what an Atlantean is, or a Martian is, varies (rather greatly) by presentation. For example, Atlanteans may be mer-folk race; an air-breathing, domed city race; a Journey to the Center of the Earth-style race; an alien race; and so on. (And even various possible combinations of these.) These should be lists so that the types and distinctions can be made clearer. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. As long as characters are explicitly identified as "Atlanteans" or "Martians", I don't see a problem here. Any characters that aren't clearly identified as such should, of course, be removed from these categories. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listifying doesn't lose any information, and you gain in that these can be clearly explained both as a theme, and a meme. Look at Martian. How can you claim all these different kinds of beings should be grouped together in a category simply because an author claimed that they were "from Mars"? Fictional "somethings" by planetary origin? - jc37 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, jc, but that's a pretty silly argument. By that logic, how can you possibly claim that all of the millions of life-forms on planet Earth belong together in the same category? :) Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - And this is worse than that, since the "ecosystem" of lifeforms on Mars differs with each author. We would never have a single category of lifeforms from Earth, fictional or otherwise. And since in fiction, other planets may be just as populated as Earth (See Krypton (comics), for example), this is a really bad idea. At least with a list, the differences could be noted and compared (See again Martian.) - jc37 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take another run at this, jc. In the Martian version of Wikipedia (ma.wikipedia.org.mars ??), all Earthly lifeforms would be referred to as Gaian lifeforms -- assuming they know that word, of course.:) The sentient lifeforms would be called "Gaians" -- and the fictional sentient Gaian lifeforms would be referred to as "fictional Gaians". (I'm assuming that only sentient fictional lifeforms can be fictional characters.) Their counterparts in our Wikipedia are fictional sentient Martian lifeforms. So, regardless of their great diversity, they are all rightly referred to as "Fictional Martians". Hope that helps. Cgingold (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of extraterrestrials in fiction by type.
As for your analogy, would it include Cetaceans? Great apes? Great cats? Elephants? What if the martians aren't vertebrates (much less humanoid), and view "sentience" to be plant life? Or viruses? Or perhaps they see it to be crystaline rock formations. This is all subjective perception. This is the problem when you're dealing with fiction: What is "true" is extremely subjective. Now combine that with the typical Wikipedia stance that we're not after "truth" but verifiability. These really should be lists. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an author has created a fictional character who/which s/he characterizes as a sentient Martian virus or a sentient Martian plant, then clearly that meets the criteria for "Fictional Martians". I don't see anything "subjective" about this, jc. Cgingold (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments to Otto in the extraterrestrials nom above. . How is a category for fictional martians different than a category for fictional blondes? At least the latter would all be of the same species : )

And this is subjective in that you're grouping by a point of origin that is different for most of these entries. The Mars of one author is not necessarily the Mars of another author. The only thing that they (may) have in common is being the fifth planet around the Sun, and often the "red appearance". Little green men also comes to mind.

So yes, this is subjective. (Bbut then, nearly all categorisation is...) - jc37 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth planet. Not fifth. And the fact that one author's Mars has different, say, geographical or political structures than another's doesn't mean that the planet isn't still Mars. Otto4711 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fourth (I was thinking of a novel I was recently reading).

And yes, it does. It is a fictionalised version of Mars. It is not historical Mars. And any planetary body may be named "Mars". And any creature may be named a "Martian". Indeed, I seem to recall Phobos and Deimos being called "Martians". Anything related to the greek god, Mars (mythology), may be titled "martian". (See the article.) This seems rather close to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. - jc37 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Category is useful. Additionally, identifying characters by 'style' or 'meme' would probably violate WP:NOR. Horselover Frost (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Such things may be verifiable. And please indicate how you feel it is "useful" (see also WP:USEFUL.), especially how it would be more useful than a list would be (see also WP:CLN). - jc37 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make such a list that doesn't violate WP:V be my guest. However, I still support keeping the categories, on the basis of their usefulness in navigating Wikipedia, which is the primary reason for including a category. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Martian I fail to see why the fact that comics do weird things means that the rest of fiction has to suffer for it. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comics? Oh, there's more to "weird fiction" than just comics : ) - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~An argument based on the fact that comics are weird doesn't seem to suffice. There are forms of fiction other than comics. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)~~ [1] This statement was made by jc37 impersonating as me. [reply]
If you keep VANDALIZING my statements, I will file a complaint. This statement was made for your DELETION REQUEST BASED ON COMICS BEING WEIRD, IN THE OTHER SECTIONS 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. The weakness in your accusation, of course, is that every edit is in the page history. As for me moving a statement which was presumingly attempting to "rebut" my comments about "weirdness", I attempted to helpfully move your comment to the right thread. If it wasn't, feel free to adjust accordingly. That said, if your goal was to not have me further attempt good faith discussion with you, you've likely achieved your aims. - jc37 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Useful categories, quite defining for the characters included. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - being from Atlantis or Mars is pretty well defining of a fictional character. I really don't understand this "why do we lump things together just because an author said they were from Mars" argument at all. If lumping things together based on what an author says about them is bad, then it's equally bad to do it in list or category format and adopting the argument would lead to the effective deletion of tens if not hundreds of thousands of lists, categories and templates. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! We are totally on the same page, Otto. (Pretty amazing in itself, huh?! :) Just the other day I said the same thing (in one of jc's scores of other CFDs, I forget which one) about his arguments leading inevitably to the deletion of "tens of thousands" of valid and useful categories. He kind of took issue with the "tens" part, but didn't really dispute my basic point. It's kind of like the infamous Vietnam War quote, "We had to destroy the village to save it." Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you would understand that my position is correct is hardly surprising. After all, even a blind pig finds the occasional truffle. ;-) Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I dispute the arbitrary quantity. (Honestly, I highly doubt we even have that many fictional categories altogether.) But that aside, if a category is overcategorisation, does it matter how many? That would be like suggesting that, since someone (perhaps by using a bot or some other tool) made 10K articles that are clear WP:OR, they shouldn't be deleted, because there are 10K of them. Just because there may be a lot of mistakes, doesn't mean that cleanup shouldn't happen. And by the way, I seem to recall something similar from those who were attempting to "cleanse" the actors by TV series cats... Is this really such a double standard? - jc37 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have 5,559 Category:Fictional... categories. This is not the same thing as the actors by series structure because a fictional Martian cannot, by definition, have another planet of origin whereas actors by series encompassed hundreds of actors from the stars to walk-ons and cameos. It is nothing like arguing to keep articles based on the number of them because we're not arguing to keep the categories because there are so many of them. Otto4711 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - per Otto. To be of martian or Atlantean origin is surely defining. Different varieties of Atlanteans/Martians could be housed within subcats if thought desirable. Occuli (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional ancient Romans

Category:Fictional Aztecs

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, although the arguments in favour of keeping were not particularly strong. There was more argument about the structure/format/meaning of the nomination and the comments than on the merits of the nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional ancient Romans

Category:Fictional Aztecs

I separated these two out from the other historical-based characters below, because these are "more common" to appear in comics and other fiction. (Another example would be Vikings.) - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see a reason to delete this being presented. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look again and you may notice it's listify then delete. Please also see #Category:Fictional characters by origin, the main nomination, above. - jc37 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To even figure out what you were referring to, people would have needed to jump 6 ways from Sunday, until you just now provided a link. The link you've provided doesn't work. The discussion you are referencing is about renaming categories, which is not what you want to do. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not putting "Category:" in the link (that's why it didn't work) But that aside, I was presuming that most people when they see "fictional characters by origin", they would look at the table of contents of the page, see the entry, and look. My apologies if this isn't an option for you for whatever reason.

As for the discussion being started with a nomination proposal of rename - This is a discussion page, and the results of a nomination may be different than what is nominated. So while I may wish to see most of the categories which I nominated to be listified, others have been suggesting other things as well. So, we just continue the discussion until 5 or so days have passed, or until a closer decides if there is concensus for action, or if the discussion should be continued and "relisted", or if the discussion has gone on long enough in its current form and there is currently "no consensus" for action.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An argument based on the fact that comics are weird doesn't seem to suffice. There are forms of fiction other than comics. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC) [2] This statement was vandalized by moving it to a section where it does not occur, pertaining to different categories, by jc37 [reply]
STOP VANDALIZING my statements. This comment was MADE HERE. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. The weakness in your accusation, of course, is that every edit is in the page history. As for me moving a statement which was presumingly attempting to "rebut" my comments about "weirdness", I attempted to helpfully move your comment to the right thread. If it wasn't, feel free to adjust accordingly. That said, if your goal was to not have me further attempt good faith discussion with you, you've likely achieved your aims. - jc37 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The potential to keep a well-populated category seems to justify its existence, not demand its deletion. Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every category has a "potential" to be kept. And lists can be "well-populated", as wel. - jc37 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they are harder to maintain, easier to be vandalised and more likely to be incomplete. I don't really see the use of lists where a good category can do the job. Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, unlike lists, which have an edit history for the list page, it is actually quite difficult to track updates to a category's membership, so no, I would disupte that categories are easier to maintain. - jc37 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Gypsies

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, though no consensus as to what the name should be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Gypsies

I separated this out from the other historical-based characters below, because, unlike those, this is a group which, when typically depicted do not have a "nation". And they are also fairly common, similar to the nom directly above. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional Roma to match the parent cat. I see no reason to delete this category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be the correct term in RL, why would/should we presume that what an author calls a "gypsy", must be Roma/Romani? Wouldn't that be WP:OR? - jc37 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per our article on the term Gypsy: "In time, the use of the term Gypsy was extended to other ethnic groups, perceived as fitting its stereotypes, like nomadic people of European (Irish Travellers, Yeniche, Quinquilleros) or South Asian origin (Lyuli, Banjara, Kalbeliya), also various ethnic groups in South-East Asia, known as Sea Gypsies. Colloquially, it names also any person perceived as fitting the Gypsy". They are not all Roma. Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an excellent reason to listify these categories: categorisation by whatever an author decided to call them. A list could explain everything you noted. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Celts

Category:Fictional Incans

Category:Fictional Māori

Category:Fictional Mayas

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, although the arguments in favour of keeping were not particularly strong. There was more argument about the structure/format/meaning of the nomination and the comments than on the merits of the nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Celts

Category:Fictional Incans

Category:Fictional Māori

Category:Fictional Mayas

These are similar to the #Fictional characters by origin discussion above. The difference being that these are (mostly) historical peoples. (Though RL versions presumably may have descendents today.) This is split off from that nom to prevent confusion, and because these may or may not fall strictly under that nom's criteria. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see a reason being presented for the deletion of these categories. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look again and you may notice it's listify then delete. Please also see #Fictional characters by origin, the main nomination, above. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your internal linkage does not work. The other discussion is about a rename request. This is not a rename request. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)*:::My apologies for not putting "Category:" in the link (that's why it didn't work) But that aside, I was presuming that most people when they see "fictional characters by origin", they would look at the table of contents of the page, see the entry, and look. My apologies if this isn't an option for you for whatever reason.[reply]
As for the discussion being started with a nomination proposal of rename - This is a discussion page, and the results of a nomination may be different than what is nominated. So while I may wish to see most of the categories which I nominated to be listified, others have been suggesting other things as well. So, we just continue the discussion until 5 or so days have passed, or until a closer decides if there is concensus for action, or if the discussion should be continued and "relisted", or if the discussion has gone on long enough in its current form and there is currently "no consensus" for action.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An argument based on the fact that comics are weird doesn't seem to suffice. There are forms of fiction other than comics. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC) [3] This statement was vandalized by moving it to a section where it does not occur, pertaining to different categories, by jc37 [reply]
STOP VANDALIZING my statements. This comment was MADE HERE. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. The weakness in your accusation, of course, is that every edit is in the page history. As for me moving a statement which was presumingly attempting to "rebut" my comments about "weirdness", I attempted to helpfully move your comment to the right thread. If it wasn't, feel free to adjust accordingly. That said, if your goal was to not have me further attempt good faith discussion with you, you've likely achieved your aims. - jc37 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful categories about depictions of historical peoples in fiction. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can categories be "about depictions of historical peoples in fiction"? They merely group articles. A list would do what you're suggesting. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Post-Soviets

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Post-Soviets

This is similar to the other "by origin" nominations. An additional issue is that, unlike most of the others, this one is based upon a specific time period. In some ways, this seems little different than "Fictional post-WWII nazis". - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe listify, as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague and undefined. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "strongly resemble a stereotypical Soviet citizen". Anyone who cares explaining what exactly is a stereotypical Soviet citizen? Dimadick (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate Category:Fictional Fooians category based on the nationality of the individual character. And as far as categorizing "fictional post-WWII nazis," if there are the articles to support it then they would go in Category:Fictional Neo-nazis. Otto4711 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Superheroes by race

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

The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Superheroes by race; listify rest. Each category may be tagged for speedy deletion once its list has been made. If the number of lists proliferates, perhaps the deleted category could be re-created under a different name ("Category:Lists of ...."). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superheroes by race

Category:Asian superheroes

Category:Black superheroes

Category:Hispanic superheroes

Category:Native American superheroes

First of all, quite often "race" can be a matter of presumption. If an author writes a character speaking in a certain "style", or a colourist uses shading on a character, but without any other notation, or merely based on the character's "style" of name: Does that define the character as someone of such a race? This can be very subjective, and requires notations/citations/explanations. Therefore, this should be a list. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following WP:CATGRS, although it may be worth creating lists from some (the last three perhaps) but in a serial format like comics where race, gender and sexual orientation can be changed at a whim it is tricky, added to the fact that "race" isn't always stated outright so inclusion on any list would need to be sourced. (Emperor (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep Black superheroes, as the history of the 'token black' superhero may allow it to meet WP:CATGRS. Delete for the rest. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are subcategories of Category:Fictional Asians, Category:Fictional characters of Black African descent, Category:Fictional Hispanics and Category:Fictional Native Americans respectively. Useful subcategorizations of their parents. Dimadick (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are nominated above. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If needed this should clearly be a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per nominator. These lists need a strong lead though. Hiding T 10:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Native American supervillains

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

The result of the discussion was: delete; (no strong arguments for even a list in this case). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American supervillains

Same as the superheroes by race, above. And further the issue of supervillins in another nom above. "Indians" have often been used as the "bad guys" in fiction. See also Cowboys and Indians. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe listify, as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that Native Americans have been used as "bad guys" in fiction is irrelevant. The category is for supervillains, which goes above and beyond simple "bad guys." Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Did you even look over the category membership? Black Bison is a great example of the problem. Most of these are merely "Cowboys and Indians" with superpowers, with the "Cowboys" typically being replaced by the "hero". - jc37 00:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following WP:CATGRS which says: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." Looking over that category you couldn't even make a list out of it. (Emperor (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep frequent use again justifies the survival of a category,not criteria for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Frequent use" means that we could have a category of "Fictional blondes". We don't categorise based on "frequent categorisation" (see WP:OC, but rather for use in navigation. And in this case, a list (per WP:CLN) would seem to be more appropriate. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hair color has long been considered a trivial characteristic so Category:Blonde Foos would be a trivial intersection. Race and ethnicity have long been considered a strongly defining characteristic. The example is invalid. Otto4711 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we're not talking about actual people, but characters. Consider that in comics, the distinction of skin colour is often no different than the distinction of hair colour. Not always, and more often in the past than in the present. Compare to the Yellow peril comics of the early 20th century, for example. (Or other color metaphors for race.) These are things which differ based upon presentation. And as such, should be individually explained. Something which is not possible in a category.

"Race and ethnicity have long been considered a strongly defining characteristic." Only within the bounds of WP:CATGRS, actually. - jc37 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the discussion that followed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because I'm not seeing any evidence that this is an intersection that has been studied or presented as a viable intersection for categorisation. This seems to be categorising because we can. Hiding T 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional multiracial characters

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional multiracial characters

Per all the other "multiracial" noms in the past. We run into the question of at what point do we count whether someone is "multiracial"? And who decides that? Consider also that we're dealing with fiction, and fiction from the past may not define terms the way modern fiction does. (See also Quadroon.) This quite obviously needs references at the very least, both for inclusion, and for defining the inclusionary term itself.

Though honestly, what possible need would there be for this? There would be no overall standard for inclusion (since it varies), and this may not even be clarified by the author.

And here's a fun one: Does Elrond qualify? How about Spock? Since we're talking about fiction, I would presume they do. And now consider how many "half-human" characters are used in fiction, especially fantasy fiction. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fictional hybrids can be defined by this trait, and notable for it, such as the presented Spock and Elrond, as well as Hercules, Sigi. In fiction dealing with human race relations, multi-racial/multi-ethnic characters can also be defined by this, as biracial characters are used to this effect in American literature 70.51.11.201 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which indiactes the use of a list, to explain (and reference) this. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to keep: category:Fictional hybrids does exist, including various sub-categories that work well for Spock, Elrond et al. I would not vote to abolish any of these categories, as they may assist someone researching the depiction in fiction of a certain nationality, etc. I have to admit that the specific example category:Star Trek hybrids could be made into a list which would be a whole lot more informative. Nevertheless, there's an advantage to also keeping the categories, namely that one can navigate to it by seeing that the category is there. (It would hardly ever be right to include such a list in the "See also" section.) - Fayenatic (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If needed this should clearly be a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Eurasians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Eurasians

Subcat of multi-racial, above. This simply has a confusing name. I understand that this is supposed to be concerning Eurasian (mixed ancestry), but this appears to be concerning Eurasian. (Inclusive of all residents of two continents, one of which is the largest in the world!?)

Even if renamed to clarify inclusion, this should still be deleted per the multiracial nom above. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CATGRS. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The characters listed seem to have mixed ancestry. If you find inapropriate entries, simply remove them. Just as with any other category. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in most of the noms on this page, listification would be better for this. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If needed this should clearly be a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brazilian expat footballers in country

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Obviously, this result is at variance with the recent decision to delete the similar subcategories of Category:Expatriate footballers in England. Future CfDs may be needed to re-establish a consensus about these types. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Triple intersection (occupation, nationality, location). The football project supports expats of country, and expats in country categories; but, not this intersection. Neier (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (per nom?) to Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers, Category:Expatriate footballers in France and Category:Brazilian expatriates in France (etc). (Delete loses all this info.) Occuli (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the triple upmerge was my intention, so as not to leave any orphans. Neier (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the triple intersection is a problem, otherwise there would be a huge number of articles in Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers and the several "Brazilian expatriates in Booia" categories. These cats help organise a large number of articles and usually reduce the number of categories in an article by combining them. And they provide useful enough reference. If you list expatriate footballers, you usually want to know where they played and where they come from. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wulf Isebrand. My goodness, there have been thousands of Brazilian expat footballers over the years and nearly all notable ones have played abroad in Europe, simply listing them together would be an uninformative repeat of Category:Brazilian footballers. These lists, as Wulf points out, are informative in telling us what countries players have played in what leagues/countries, and they greatly reduce cat page listing clutter (3 links to 1) (I would however support the upmerge is the 'catscan' tool, or one like it, mentioned by a user in a previous discussion, became incorporated into wikipedia) Mayumashu (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I have just created the category Brazilian expatriate footballers in the Netherlands, unaware of this discussion. That category should probably be included in this CfD as well. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into parent categories and delete. This kind of triple intersection is overcategorisation. They are unnecessary, because they acheive nothing that cannot be achieved using catscan or the more cumbersome wikipedia version incategory:"Brazilian footballers" incategory:"Expatriate footballers in England". A very recent discussion about exactly the same kind of triple-intersection resulted in deletion, any other outcome here would lead to confusion. EP 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, that we need a clear decision to avoid any confusion. However, I still think that the decision to delete the subcats of Category:Expatriate footballers in England was a fault and the deletion of the Brazilian cats would make things even worse because of the large number of Brazilian expat footballers. The parent cat will become very large and unclear because of that decision and the numbers of categories in the articles will increase or even double. Take Tobias Linderoth, for example. He is listed at Category:Expatriate footballers in Denmark, Category:Expatriate footballers in England, Category:Expatriate footballers in the Netherlands, Category:Expatriate footballers in Turkey, but also at Category:Swedish expatriate footballers, Category:Swedish expatriates in the Netherlands and Category:Swedish expatriates in the United Kingdom (Category:Swedish expatriates in Turkey and Category:Swedish expatriates in Denmark doesn't exist so far). Subcats like Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in England will minimize them. They will also make the parent cat more informative and useful. Both CatScan and the Search are too cumbersome or not incorporated into Wikipedia. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While a triple intersection is not normally allowed for a category, this particular type is useful per the arguments above. However, the category Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers needs to be looked at to see if any of its members belong in these or similar triple intersection cats. Deamon138 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

9/11

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The article September 11, 2001 attacks was recently renamed to September 11 attacks. Following that, the "sub-articles" of that were renamed e.g. Airport security repercussions due to the September 11, 2001 attacks was renamed to Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks. Anyway, the proposal is now to rename all the above categories for consistency inline with the articles. So all instances of "September 11, 2001 attacks" are renamed to be "September 11 attacks" and also all category names end in that, rather than the couple that begin with it e.g. the Images one. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_September_11,_2001 for further info if needed. Deamon138 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm surprised (and not pleased) to learn of this development. I could understand (and would support) renaming them to "9/11 attacks", since that is very widely used, and is understood to refer only to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Dropping the year but spelling out the month isn't quite the same. Also, was there no discussion of the September 11, 1973 attacks that took place during the 1973 Chilean coup d'état? I don't think I can support this proposal, article names notwithstanding. Cgingold (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the original renaming of the mother article was discussed at Talk:September_11_attacks.
Secondly, I was under the understanding that categories have to follow the example of the related article titles?
Also, "9/11 attacks" was considered, but consensus was that it was too informal.
As for the Chilean point, firstly, this point was raised, but not further discussed (I can only assume that most people see the new title as pertaining to 9/11 and not the coup). The way I see it, 9/11 was "attacks" plural because it happened in multiple locations, whereas (afaik, I could be wrong) the Chilean coup was only an "attack" plural. Also, September 11 attacks is BY FAR a more common name for 9/11 than for the coup. In fact, according to September 11, it says, "In other places of the world the media also use it as shorthand for other events; for example, the September 11, 1973 Coup d'État in Chile is referred to as "El 11 de Septiembre" or "El once" ("September 11" or "The eleventh" in Spanish) as shorthand for the Coup events; September 11 is also Enkutatash or New Year's Day in the Ethiopian calendar." This suggests that the word "attack" doesn't come into it, as far as the name for that is concerned. This foll ows the normal Wikipedia policy of having the article that is the most well known of the events at the non-disambiguated title, and the other either at another title (which it is: 1973 Chilean coup d'état) or disambiguated (so from your perspective, it could've been named "September 11, 1973 attack(s)", but 9/11 would've still occupied the non-disambiguated article. Also, the new name follows WP:NCE as far as I know. Anyway, it has never been the case to disambiguate BOTH events that could take the same name (if of course the current name of the Chile article is less common than "September 11 attacks") if one is significantly more well known than the other. If they are of roughly equal notability then both are disambiguated: consider the top two of the disambiguation page George Bush). But if one is significantly more notable, then it isn't disambiguated (see WP:PRIME). Besides, September 11 attacks was ALREADY a redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks, so the rename changed the location of the page, and has changed NOTHING in regards to the Chilean coup. Deamon138 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all - there was solid consensus for renaming the main article, with the discussion noted on the Village pump, requested moves, and request for comment. The categories should all be renamed to be consistent with the article names. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no suggestion for the charity singles. Apart from that, I support the renaming of the categories to reflect the renaming of the articles they contain. There are good arguments here and elsewhere supporting the omission of the year from such references to the attacks. Waltham, The Duke of 04:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the charity singles. OOPS! I dunno what happened there, but it got left out for some reason. I have fixed the nomination to show the proposal for that one. Deamon138 (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; we'll find out about the reason at a later time. The important thing is that there is a complere proposal, and that I support it. Waltham, The Duke of 02:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus to rename the main article was, in my opinion, wrongheaded though it could have been a lot worse. Either way the associated pages and categories should follow this. On a more perfect wiki, this would happen automatically (of course, the idea of relative/dependent page-titles would probably make Brion's head explode). Rename, I guess. {{Category redirect}}s may be helpful for at least a few months for the benefit of those unaware of this sweeping change. — CharlotteWebb 13:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Articles and categories should (almost?) always have the same naming scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, please: this is a sensible move indeed. Tony (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cave biology

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

The result of the discussion was: rename both per nom, removing WNS to Category:Speleology for now. If other articles are found/written to support a "Cave biology" category that contains more than just organisms, feel free to recreate. Kbdank71 13:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both, to Category:Cave organisms and Category:Extinct cave organisms, respectively.

Rationale: The entire contents of both categories are articles about different organisms (living or extinct), whereas the current category-names denote the scientific fields that study such organisms. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. This makes sense—it's not that the named categories would be necessarily inappropriate, but the proposed name is what they are in fact being used for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: White nose syndrome is in Category:Cave biology, and that isn't an organism. Deamon138 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there -- I did overlook that one. I guess the question comes down to, do we want to keep Category:Cave biology for that single article -- moving everything else to Category:Cave organisms -- or do we simply remove White nose syndrome from the renamed category, and leave it at that? Cgingold (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noticed you have notified the creator: I would be interested in what he had in mind. Did he only want to add organisms, and someone else added the WNS article? Or did he want to add other cave biological articles like WNS, and if so, is it realistic that there will be more articles related to Cave biology that aren't organisms? Deamon138 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of the creator was a category for collecting and organizing all articles related to the biological subfield of speleology. It turns out that most of those are about specific organisms. WNS definitely goes under there somewhere. I ~~am not opposed to the rename and~~ have little to contribute to the discussion. I gave up being a prophet a long time ago and cannot accurately predict what articles related to this topic will arrive in the future. WTucker (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am withdrawing my previous statement about not being opposed. I am opposed to the renames. Category:Cave biology is clearly being used for more than just cave organisms. It contains other articles related to biological cave study (also known as speleobiology but cave biology is the recognizable term). Category:Cave paleontology is a better name than extinct cave organisms as most of the organisms currently listed there are not cave organisms. They are extinct and were discovered and are studied in association with caves but are not necessarily troglobites themselves. I expect other articles related to cave biology and cave paleontology as well as other similar fields to arrive and they should be categorized appropriately. I would not be opposed to categories such as speleobiology but the current names are more generally recognized and understood without explanation. WTucker (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former Bahá'ís

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as part of a series for Category:People by former religion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category had two entries and will likely have only a very few. Cats are for facilitating article browsing. This isn't a particularly useful cat as it covers such a small unrelated group of people. I'm not even sure that one of them was accurately tagged. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) The category has not been tagged for deletion. (2) The category was manually emptied, making it near impossible for other editors to assess. I've restored the two articles referred to pending this discussion. I've also added parent categories. (3) As for the merits of the category, I would say keep as part of a series of Category:People by former religion. I think that the claim that the category "will likely have only a few", even if true, is kind of irrelevant in this case. There's "few" in Category:Former Zoroastrians, Category:Former Unificationists, and others, but I don't think it's a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs) 15:04, September 1, 2008
Delete There is only page that meets the requirements of being in the category (the second does not) and thus it does not serve in facilitating article browsing. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the "doesn't facilitate browsing" argument. If I approach Category:People by former religion and see people categorised by former religion, how does it not facilitate browsing to have a category for former Bahá'ís? If there is no category, I won't get any information on any former Bahá'ís. The fact that it "facilitates browsing" seems manifestly obvious to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree entirely with Good Ol’factory's comments -- this is part of a larger category scheme. Cgingold (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If a person wanted to see if a certain person was a Baha'i, it would be nice to see a list on Wikipedia; I can't think of any other place that would have one other than a website designed to direct people away from the faith. Also, both of them were correctly tagged; Ehsan Yarshater grew up in a Baha'i Family, but I guess I won't change it yet, there must have been a valid reason that I just didn't catch.--eskimospy (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these 'former XXX' are not necessarily kept - see e.g. several in cfd on 2007 January 1. Occuli (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue with the ones deleted was party definitional and partly non-specificity. Christians are much larger a group and more divided by denomination. There is not universal agreement what denominations count as Christian making "former Christian" problematic. In the case of Hinduism and Buddhism it was unclear if they had a concept of "apostasy." If Bahá'í does not have a concept of apostasy, and it's not universally agreed what it even means, then those are a precedent for delete. If they do have a concept of apostasy, and an agreed upon definition, then it should be kept.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a lot of categories with only one or two entries, after all if you have a category of "Olympic Gold Medalists by Nationality" there are going to be lots of Australians but not many from Liechtenstein (there is one shown,Hanni Wenzel). If one or two is not enough, what is the magic minimum number? 4? 6? 10? Hugo999 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does seem to be a concept like apostasy in Bahá'í, Covenant-breaking. In addition the Bahá'í divisions outside the main one seem to be small and similar enough there should be some agreement on who has left all forms of Bahá'í altogether. Lastly the topic can not be credibly merged into other categories.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC) withdrawn[reply]
- Well, Covenant Breaking is different than apostasy, but there still is a concept of apostacy.--75.164.119.47 (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consistency with other such categories. At the risk of sounding bad-faith, this is a POV nomination in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That does assume bad faith. Thanks a lot. Categorizing people by their former belief is often a POV attack on their former faith. It's usually a gambit in this line of reasoning: "Such-and-such a faith tradition is illegitimate because so-and-so of note has left it." People have used Malcom X's departure from the Nation of Islam in exactly that fashion. So, bluntly, the category is itself arguably POV. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No it's not. It's simply a recognition that person X was of faith Y. That person could have left it for any of a number of reasons - including its deficiency. None of that is explicit or implicit in marking that person as "formerly Y." Since you failed to nominate similar categories for (e.g.) Muslims and Christians, it seems like a bad-faith nomination on your part to try to delete Bahá'í apostates. Also, sarcasm like false gratitude is not clever or helpful in any way; what is the point in typing "thanks a lot?" You can save that nonsense for some message board. If there is a problem with the way that the Nation of Islam is presented in Malcolm X, fix that article; don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until other articles are found/written. As of now, there is only one article. Categorization is for finding like articles. When there aren't any, you don't need the category. Make sure the article states the person is a former Bahá'í and leave it at that. --Kbdank71 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I voted there was two. If there's only one, and this is unlikely to grow, then I agree. So for now I withdraw.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't part of the process of "finding like articles" finding articles in categories that are similar, but not identical? So through, e.g., the subcategories of Category:People by former religion you can find like articles of people who have withdrawn from a religion, regardless of what religion it is. From this view, it's irrelevant if a category has one article in it or 100 in it, so long as it's a category that is part of a "series" of similar articles. That's how I use the category tree, at least. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Within one category, finding like articles means finding ones that match that category. Once you start moving around the category structure, all bets are off. We can't assume that anyone viewing this category is looking for people of ANY former religion, just this one. Because this category is also in Category:Bahá'ís. And what happens if you go two (or more) categories away? Someone might come to Category:Former Bahá'ís but are really looking for Category:People associated with religion or philosophy. I see the category structure as fluid, always changing, getting better. If we stop and say Category A can't be changed because of its parents, then everything stops. If it's really important to have a link to people by former religion, we can upmerge, or add a "see also" section to the one article. --Kbdank71 13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which article(s) was deleted from this category? Why? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be Ehsan Yarshater [4], whose article states: Although born into a Baha'i family, he has had no affiliation with the religion as an adult, and has said that he himself is not a Baha'i. I wouldn't consider that to be a "former Baha'i". --Kbdank71 14:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spiritual claimants

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus for proposed names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Psychics to Category:Purported psychics

Propose renaming Category:Spiritual mediums to Category:Purported spiritual mediums

Propose merging Category:Telepaths to Category:Purported telepaths

Propose merging Category:Remote viewers to Category:Purported remote viewers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Declaring as encyclopedic fact that these people possess the powers they claim to violates WP:NPOV and probably WP:OR and WP:V. Renaming/merging/moving neutralizes these issues by being factually accurate. In the alternative, some formulation of Category:People who claim to be psychic would be acceptable. This was discussed previously and approved but a later CFD (focusing on whether or not "purported" was sufficiently neutral) got us to where we are now. I contend that "purported" is neutral but if not then "claim to be" certainly is. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/merge all per nom, since the current category names essentially declare as fact the claims of these individuals. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agreed, rename/merge as nominated.~~ What about category:Prophets? The sub-cats are generally well-established lists defined within the various religions, but the head category contains some contested purported prophets as well as individuals who were accepted within religions that do not have sub-cats. However, maybe this is not the time to discuss that one. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose adding Category:Angelic visionaries to this nomination on similar grounds, although these people claimed an experience rather than a power. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Visionaries and Apparitions categories have been considered before. I withdraw my suggestion above and will add oldCFD templates to the talk pages of the categories concerned. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now withdrawn my support for the proposal in the light of the discussion below. The line between these claimed powers, and claimed experiences which are more widely respected in established religions e.g. prophets and apparitions, is a fine one and not one that I would want to defend. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the goal of this proposal (though I'm not sure we need to rename Spiritual mediums), but I want to be sure we settle on the best possible name (to lessen the likelihood of future CFDs on that score) -- so I'd like to see what people had to say in the previous CFD that focused on the word "purported". Cgingold (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to locate it and couldn't. IIRC it was initiated by BrownHairedGirl so she may have a record of it somewhere. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some discussion on the use of the word "purported." I'll keep looking. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Also, considering I think the UK is changing the laws surrounding charging money for the services of a "psychic", so that they have to "prove" they aren't committing fraud when they charge money, then we should also follow that lead and ask for similar "proof" to categorize them as such. Deamon138 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I have struck my comment as my views have changed, and I am going to comment again below. Deamon138 (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming Category:Spiritual mediums (still considering the rest). "Spiritual mediums" are what they are, so there's no reason to call them "purported" -- in fact, that makes no sense at all. Whether they in fact communicate with the dead, etc. is another matter entirely. I would reserve the term "purported spiritual mediums" for, say, undercover police officers pretending to be spiritual mediums -- if you see what I mean. :) Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I hope you can clear this up for me. Why are Spiritual mediums "are what they are", but Psychics "aren't what they are"? Deamon138 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, that's a fairly valid point. Perhaps this nom should be split. - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think where Cgingold is going with this is that he's seeing "Spiritual medium" as an occupation but is not seeing "Psychic" in the same way. Which if that is what he's saying, I understand the point but disagree with it. There's no requirement that a "medium" be one professionally, and plenty of "psychics" charge for their services. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Which is why I was wondering if this nom should be split. - jc37 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose based on Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It pains me to do this, because I actually agree, but if we do this we are far more guilty of POV pushing as outlined in guidance; do not use "claim" merely as shorthand to communicate that someone's belief or statement is incorrect. If it is incorrect in fact, be clear about that. If it is ambiguous, be clear about that, too... purported and purportedly, like claim, serve the function of casting doubt upon an assertion. Saying something is "supposedly" or "purportedly" true makes it seem as though the author believes it uncertain. Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid we should rename Category:Psychics to Category:People who believe themselves to be psychic, and so on and so forth. This avoids the pitfalls of any subjectivity by accurately declaring factual events. Hiding T 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But we don't actually know whether they truly "believe themselves to be psychic"... Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see "purported" as carrying the implication that a claim is false, but rather the implication that a claim is uncertain, which would seem to be what we want in this case. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then go for "people believed to be psychics". Or simply stick at "psychic" and reason that pople are pretty much made up as to whether they are or not anyway. We don't know that they purport to be psychic either, so that's as much OR, because they may actually be psychic, in which case they aren't purporting to be anything. I don't purport to be a wikipedia admin, and I'd get bloody annoyed if someone said I purport to be one. I am one. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that NPOV does not allow us to entrench a POV, and certainly not a SPOV. Those are the breaks, that's what we all signed up for. Purported and claimed are words to be avoided, and so we should avoid them. I'm sorry that doesn't suit the sensibilities here, but I believe we have to find another way otherwise we are instilling bias into Wikipedia. WP:NPOV has to be placed above our own points of view on issues. I don;t mind being the sole opponent, but I believe I am doing what is right by our fundamental principle. My thinking now is to go to the extreme: "People whose claims to possess psychic abilities have not been scientifically proven" and "People whose claims to possess psychic abilities have not been scientifically tested". Yes, I appreciate how must arsing about it is. But it does better reflect the actualities. That's what we mean. We mean we reckon this is purported because we do not believe such abilities exist as science has not as yet shown their existence. Christ knows. Go wring a NPOV exemption for categories out of Jimmy so I can shut up and go to bed. I've said my piece, I'll not muddy it any further. Hiding T 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Quietly wonders about listification for Telepaths and remote viewers based on the discussion above.) - jc37 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, Words to avoid is a guideline, not a policy, which is subject to exception and common sense. Second, I disagree with the assertion of the guideline that "purported" automatically means that the author doubts the truth of what is being purported. It merely means that the thing being purported has not been proven. And it is true that none of these supernatural phenomena have been scientifically proven under controlled conditions. If "purported," however, is too unpalatable, then how about "self-proclaimed"? Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is policy and is pretty clear too, To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. You are correct that it has not been scientifically proven. You are incorrect that it has not been proven. It has only not been proven in the SPOV. That may well be the POV most of us subscribe to, but NPOV is quite clear we can't assert that as the correct POV. "Self-proclaimed" implies there is no justification as well. Sorry. Look, you don;t have to spend all day trying to convince me; I think it is wrong per NPOV, but obviously consensus will decide whether the existence of psychic phenomena is a significant view or not, or whether, horror of horrors, NPOV may be wrong. Hiding T 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: firstly, I'd like to draw people's attention to the categories Category:People_claiming_to_have_psychokinetic_abilities, and Category:People claiming to have paranormal abilities. These seem related to this discussion. Make of those what you will. I would also like to draw attention to the category Category:Pseudoscience, where (according to an ARBCOM ruling: see WP:PSCI) we are allowed to categorize things as pseudoscience e.g. "Astrology is Pseudoscience according to that. Whether we should or not, or form a new consensus about this, is another matter, however, the pseudoscience category is directly related to this discussion. Of course, Category:Pseudoscience doesn't have to follow WP:BLP, but it's sub-category Category:Pseudoscientists does! This could get messy.
Jc37 wondered above whether we should listify. I think listifying would be fine, but I don't think we should delete the categories as well. I mean isn't some category about Psychics (whenever we decide on a name) the best category for someone like Uri Geller? People like him are only notable for their "abilities".
I wouldn't mind as suggested above Category:People believed to be psychics or even inline with Category:Possibly living people, have Category:Possible psychics (although that name now seems to me to be leaning towards the other POV). However, this is a far reaching decision. Not only could it involve the "pseudoscience" ones above, but what about other non-science (for that is what this boils down to: if it isn't scientific then it's "pseudoscience" or it's "purported")? What about Category:Miracles? What about Category:Prophets? Do we now categorize Jesus in Category:People believed to be prophets?? Worms. Whole can of. Opened and spilling out everywhere.... Deamon138 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believed by who? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Of the two I mentioned for listification, neither was the Psychics (or Mediums, for that matter). - jc37 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true you didn't, but then why treat a Telepaths category any different to a Psychics category? Deamon138 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons noted above in the discussion. The first two may be (loosely) considered occupations, regardless of whether actual supernatural ability is involved. Note that I did suggest that this nom be split (though it's too late for that now...) - jc37 13:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as Otto4711 said, "There's no requirement that a "medium" be one professionally, and plenty of "psychics" charge for their services." Deamon138 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, because I think I already answered, but since this time I didn't actually name which "two", you may be misunderstanding. "mediums" and "psychics" may or may not be "occupations". And just that alone means that there may be a lack of clarity concerning inclusion criteria in the category. (So I'm thinking a Weak keep on those grounds, though I might support listifing.) I think that telepaths and remote viewers need to be listified, if only due to this discussion, which seems to indicate that there is a disagreement among verifiable reliable sources. And so that needs to be explained for each entry. The opinions of anyone commenting here have zero weight when compared to the sources. That makes each of these a list, not a category. (So for these two (tp and rv), I'm thinking Listify and Delete.) - jc37 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm gonna have to come back later on today to properly elaborate on this subject. At the moment, I just want to throw out a suggestion. For reasons that I don't have time to explain right now, I keep coming back to the following general formulation for these categories: "People purported to have [Xyz] abilities" -- i.e. Category:People purported to have psychic abilities or Category:People purported to have telepathic abilities, etc. (I would not apply this to Spiritual mediums.) Sorry to leave this hanging -- more later! Cgingold (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose. The history is that these were already renamed from the suggested names. They were renamed after an ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal gave guidance. Also, there is no reason to use WTAs. Please see ArbCom especially Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Cultural_artifacts, but others as well. This issue should remain settled, we went through a whole ArbCom over similar issues. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are probably also unaware of the difficulties. The suggestion above for example "Category:People who believe themselves to be psychic, conflicts with the Psychic article, which clearly states that it applies to mentalists as well. People have thought these issues through for years. In spite of some opposition, in the end the only logical and NPOV way of doing it was what the ArbCom said: Psychics and the like are cultural artefacts, and we do not make a statement about their existence or lack of it by such things as categories, definitions, etc. The line one should not cross is in a category like "Category:People claiming to have paranormal abilities". This one is proper, because if we had it as "Category:People with paranormal abilities" then we actually would be making a claim. But "Category:Psychics" or "Category:Telepaths" is not making a claim, as psychics and telepaths are cultural artefacts (and rather obviously so: the term "psychic" is its own qualifier). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose (with an added sheesh). At the very least adding purported to any title/heading creates a non-neutral environment before the article has even begun. Sub topics such as purported psychics, for example, should exist under the more general heading for the article. Information about the topic should not be added to the title, but is the implied content of a good article.Pulling such information out of the body of the article and adding it to the heading, even in an abbreviated form, slants the article.(olive (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies above' .... thought this was another discussion... sheesh is right.(olive (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Martinphi, while I'm not necessarily disputing the correctness of the ArbCom's decision, the problem with decisions from "up high", is that we don't know the reasoning process behind it. So I would be interested to know, for instance, how it was decided that:

"Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.
It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

To me, decisions on this kind of far-reaching thing are much more agreeable to me if they are reached via community consensus. Deamon138 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, community consensus was not avaliable, and still isn't. That's why ArbCom had to step in. I think that the reasoning was very simple, however. I can't base this on really specific diffs, but only on the general process we went through way back then, and the arguments I and others gave which seem to have lead to the decision. I think the reasoning was that 1) articles and other material are not to be taken in isolation. 2) Parts of articles are not to be taken in isolation. 3) The reader is not to be treated as completely unaware of material widely distributed in the culture (treated as stupid or entirly ignorant), such as that the existence of psychics is controversial. Because of these things, using WTAs or other such devices are not necessary. An article must include the information which will allow the reader to form a good general picture of the terrain. But not every sentence, definition, etc. needs to be NPOV. Rather, the lowest reasonable level at which we can achieve NPOV is perhaps the lead, where at least one paragraph must be taken as a whole by the reader. Achieving NPOV on the level of category names or single sentences is not possible, because it requires such things as use of the word "purported," which is a WTA for a reason. Of course, I can't tell you exactly how the ArbCom reasoned. I can only tell you that these general arguments were presented, and they decided as they did. You have years and millions of words (yes) of debate to take into consideration here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose (still with some sheesh) My point still stands. Adding "purported" to a category name creates a non-neutral environment and is POV. Such information belongs in the specifics of the article, and not as part of the highly general, overarching "category". As an example, the category, psychics includes all psychics purported and otherwise. Choosing to select from that generalized term a specific group of psychics and adding that term to the "category" is a non neutral, POV move. How can we support POV in the "categories"section of the article?(olive (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose As others have pointed out, those are cultural artifacts, and adding "purported" would be taking a non-neutral position regarding their, ah, effectivity. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do for the best, but to call someone a telepath or a remote viewer seems like a violation of WP:V - especially when we also cover fictional telepaths (which is all of them, as far as I can tell, since telepathy is a fictional construct with no objective reality). Actually there are so few members of the telepath and remote viewer categories that nuking them would do no harm and probable good, since it would remove the impression that Wikipedia believes people really can do these fanciful things. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ballet disambiguation

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No criteria for inclusion defined. Unnecessary as subcategory of Category:Disambiguation.older ≠ wiser

Comment: I've made Romeo and Juliet (ballet) a disambiguation page within this category to test whether it might be useful. If it's not, then feel free to reinstate that page above as a redirect to the Prokofiev article. Note that the disambiguation page includes the article Romeo and Juliet (Lavery), which is not currently linked from the main article Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev). - Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dab pages have their own categories. If the project needs additional categories, they should create them. Editors should not override their process. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please would you expand on that? Sorry, I don't grasp the points you are making. Disambiguation has other sub-categories at the moment e.g. Category:Vehicle disambiguations, so why not this one? I don't mind what the outcome is, I just want to learn to use categories according to consensus. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no clearly defined process for creating subcategories of Category:Disambiguation, although the category page cautions editors Do not add articles to these sub-categories or create additional sub-categories until you read Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)—most of the sub-categories do not comply with the MOS and will be removed. The problem is that pages in these subcategories risk becoming unmaintained orphans, as the disambiguation project doesn't want them and doesn't recognize them. A small number of the subcategories were created for specific purposes because it was felt the formatting guidelines of MOSDAB were too restrictive. Most of these are a specialized type of page known as set index pages, which are found in Category:Set indices. These are somewhat different in that usually there is an active project that sees the need for a new type of set index, creates templates, determines some standards for consistency, and (hopefully) actively maintains the pages. Other disambiguation subcategories have no such pedigree, and even less likelihood of being consistently structured, formatted or maintained. older ≠ wiser 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please! There are often completely different ballets made to the same music bearing the same title (and occasionally made to different compositions of the same title; ballets are often named after the music.) I have been cataloguing New York City Ballet's works season by season (it would take them over five years to go through the four hundred dances they have.) City Ballet alone has the following ambiguous titles in their rep.

I have created (or categorized existing) disambiguation pages for some of these pairs and hope this will demonstrate the utility of Category:Ballet disambiguation; there already exist disambiguation pages for Swan Lake and Octet that speak both to ballets and to other meanings. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Disambiguation it is their call for disambiguation categories. There is a process in place and I don't think we need to override them. Could you be confusing a disambiguation page with categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Regional cuisine

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No criteria defined for inclusion, unclear how it fits into the Category:Cuisine hierarchy. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (2 articles, one a user page, the other bovine testicles.) The red-linked Category:Cowboy culture contains 6 articles, oddly. Occuli (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Films that portray the future

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Films that portray the future to Category:Films set in the future

Nominator's rationale: Merge, I just created the latter, not realising that the former already existed. However, the new category name is more consistent with others e.g. Category:Films set in the 2010s. Fayenatic (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I can think of films like The Terminator which portray the future but aren't set in the future. Hiding T 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you contacted WP:FILM to get their input? And forgive me if you are a participant. Hiding T 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That's an interesting and clever point. I have now made Category:Films set in the future a sub-category of Category:Films that portray the future, and would be happy speedily withdraw the nomination, if you think that is best. And no, I have not yet notified WP:FILM. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the distinction that's being made, but I'm not so sure that it makes for a useful distinction in terms of Categories. I think it's rather too subtle -- and subjective, for that matter -- to serve as a workable distinction that readers and editors will perceive in the same terms. Simply put, the Terminator films (and others) are set in part in the future. Cgingold (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I thought that. That's why I thought it was worth asking WP:FILM for their input. They'd be the best people to know one way or the other if this category is good for anything. I guess I'll go observe the niceties. Hiding T 09:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it's easier to establish a setting than a 'portrayal'. A 'Portrayal' could be overt, as in Hellboy, where he has a vision of himself ruling hell, or implicit, such as the suggestions of different Americas after political sea changes, like a Bulworth. For that matter, too many movies imply an outcome not shown on film, (think slasher movies which portray a future where the killer's still alive), for the category to have meaning. However, the setting is less problematic (expect for Star Wars, which was long, long ago, with super 'futuristic' locations and gear). ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comic book conventions

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic book conventions to Category:Comics conventions

Nominator's rationale: If the Angoulême International Comics Festival is here, as it should be, we should rename to better reflect that this applies wider than simply comic books but all aspects of the form. I think the new title better reflects the contents and the category structure slowly being implemented in Category:Comics per prior debates.

Rename as nom. Hiding T 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Fairly straight-forward. - jc37 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Common sense. (Emperor (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Rename per nom. Matches parent category. LA (T) @ 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soccer seasons

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus (can someone de-tag these?). Kbdank71 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have not marked all of these for CfR; there are a lot of them, and it will take time. I also have to sleep. I will get them done within 24 hours and if anyone wants to help me, that's great.

Per WP:DASH, all of these need to be changed. Note that the 1987-1988s are actually merges since there are duplicate categories:

complete list (TL;DR)

(hyphen to ndash)

I realize that there are a lot of these and a whole lot more that have not been tagged or suggested (e.g. American football, baseball, and basketball categories.) There are only 24 hours in a day and I would like to nominated them all immediately, but it's simply not possible. Please don't let that in any way stop you from applying this simple style rule to these categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and WP:DASH. Making an en dash is no harder than making a letter capitalized without using the caps lock button. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think I'm with Otto on this one. MoS is not equal to NC. And in reading over the MoS (WP:DASH), it makes it clear that in these situations a redirect should be made. So now we're going to use category redirects? Sounds like a not-so-good idea. If there's something I'm missing, please let me know. - jc37 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and WP:DASH. And make category redirects for the hyphenated forms (which I believe to be policed by bots). The alternative is to revise WP:DASH for article and category names. (I agree with Otto about 'difficult-to-replicate characters in category [and article] names' but hadn't thought en- and em-dash were that hard to replicate, partly because they appear in places 1 and 2 of line 1 in the default edit screen. – — …) Occuli (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so much "difficult to replicate" as "difficult to visually distinguish". — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but keep {{category redirect}} for each one. — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto and jc37. WP:DASH does not apply well to category names, and an en dash is difficult to replicate (I'm pretty sure 'en dash' is nowhere on my keuboard). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we take the article UEFA Champions League 2008–09 (which uses en-dash) then surely the category should be Category:UEFA Champions League 2008–09 (and copy and paste suffices, easily accomplished by keyboard). Occuli (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as pointless. WP:DASH should not apply to category names, and it is just an extra thing for people to have to remember every time they add one of these categories to a page. I can see why this would be a good move for an article title, but to force categories to use special characters in their titles is a bit foolish. – Pee Jay 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: firstly, I'm not at all bothered if WP:DASH is implemented or not, so I won't stand in the way of that, but nor am I particularly agreeable to it either. However, I noticed that we have say, Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1993-94 season going to Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1993–94 season and, Category:1962-63 domestic football (soccer) leagues going to Category:1962–63 domestic football (soccer) leagues. Why not instead rename to Category:Football (soccer) clubs in the 1993–94 season and Category:Domestic football (soccer) leagues in the 1962–63 season? It keeps consistency, and the names work better too imo. So, regardless of WP:DASH, how about that? Deamon138 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the premise of WP:DASH doesn't apply here since a typical redirect from the normally-typed name to the MOS-endorsed version is not possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per WP:DASH and for consistency with article names and prose. It should be "Association football clubs..." rather then "Football (soccer) clubs..." as the main article is titled Association football. --Jameboy (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a few discussions of WP:DASH and its application to categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_19#Canadian_Soccer_League_(1986–1992), Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_13#Bilateral_relations, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#Category:Georgian-Abkhazian_conflict —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Naval battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806-1812

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806-1812 to Category:Naval battles of the Russo–Turkish War, 1806–1812

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming conventions say "follow MoS" as far as dashes are concerned. "MOS be damned" is not very productive in this case. And there will be redirects from the versions with the hyphens in all these categories. I wonder how many times the same argument needs to be refuted. Waltham, The Duke of 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Naval battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806–1812. The use of the en dash is correct is separating dates, but nom might want to review WP:DASH: a hyphen, not an en dash, in used for "Russo-Turkish" because "Russo" "lacks lexical independence". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the premise for the MOS rule as discussed at WP:DASH is that a redirect will exist from the name as normally typed. Since that redirect can't exist here, the existing page name is best maintained. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Can't"? Waltham, The Duke of 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are soft redirects, not functional redirects; when editors write the category name normally, with a hyphen, the article will not be added to the category. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Naval battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806–1812 per Good'olf, and use category redirect (and rename associated articles in the corresponding fashion). Occuli (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Waltham, The Duke of 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a few discussions of WP:DASH and its application to categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_19#Canadian_Soccer_League_(1986–1992), Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_13#Bilateral_relations, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#Category:Georgian-Abkhazian_conflict —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP got serious about the use of dashes about two years ago, and since then, the readability of year and page ranges has improved significantly, especially in featured content where MoS is enforced. "1806–1812", or better, "1806–12", not the squidgy squinty "1806-1812". While the need to use en dashes rather than hyphens to indicate an oppositional coupling is not as glaringly obvious as for ranges, correct usage makes the compound item more readable, more attractive, and carries meaning. Such meaning may escape some writers, and may not be explicitly understood by many readers, but the pscyhological impact is nevertheless there. "Russo-Turkish War" requires a hyphen because "Russo" is not a stand-alone word. "Russian–Turkish War" requires an en dash—it's a no-brainer and should be consistent throughout article text, article titles and, of course, category titles. Tony (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs

Moved to Stub types for deletion. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the Anglo-Turkish War (1807-1809)

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the Anglo-Turkish War (1807-1809) to Category:Naval battles of the Anglo–Turkish War (1807–1809)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Naval battles of the Anglo-Turkish War (1807–1809). The of use of an en dash is correct is separating dates, but nom might want to review WP:DASH: a hyphen, not an en dash, in used for "Anglo-Turkish" because "Anglo" "lacks lexical independence". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Good'olf, and use category redirect. Occuli (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the two editors above: "Anglo", "Russo", "Franco", "Greco", "Sino", etc. should use a hyphen and not an en dash. As far as the category redirects are concerned, they should be considered standard practice when categories are moved on grounds of erroneous hyphen usage. Waltham, The Duke of 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a few discussions of WP:DASH and its application to categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_19#Canadian_Soccer_League_(1986–1992), Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_13#Bilateral_relations, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#Category:Georgian-Abkhazian_conflict —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, given that category redirects aren't actually functional redirects, we shouldn't be acting as if they are a real solution to the problem being created by this move. No additional clarity is achieved by the move but the chance of the category being broken substantially increases. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:EOKA struggle (1955-1959)

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:EOKA struggle (1955-1959) to Category:EOKA struggle

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unnecessary dab. At least replace the hyphen with a dash ( – ). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The only reason for the current name is a disambiguation between EOKA, the nationalist organization of the 1950s, and the EOKA B, the paramilitary organization of the 1970s. However this would only require the addition of the "B" if a category is ever created for the later. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Defunct soccer clubs in the United States

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Defunct soccer clubs in the United States to Category:Defunct American soccer clubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with other such categories. See Category:Defunct football (soccer) clubs —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is good but I would prefer a reverse rename to "Defunct football (soccer) clubs in [PLACE]". — CharlotteWebb 13:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm personally indifferent; if you want to nominate the opposite, close this one and supersede it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Scotland national football team - Results & Fixtures

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scotland national football team - Results & Fixtures to Category:Scotland national football team results and fixtures

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Caps., etc. I honestly don't know why "fixtures" is in here, but I guess it should stay. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess for upcoming fixtures? rename per nom. Hiding T 11:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why "Scotland" and not "Scottish"? Deamon138 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The standard for national football team articles is "Foo national football team", with "Foo" being the official country name as recognized by FIFA. For example, FIFA calls the two Koreas "Korea DPR" (North) and "Korea Republic" (South), so the national team articles reflect that usage. "Football" is used except in countries where "football" consistently refers to a different football code—e.g., "soccer" in the US and Canada (the men's team articles for these countries' teams also add "men's") and "football (soccer)" for Australia. — Dale Arnett (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People who have died while climbing Mount Everest

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest. While there is at least one article, listed below, that would not be technically correct in this category, this seems to be the one with consensus. This does not preclude the creation of Category:Deaths on Mount Everest as a parent to the renamed category which in my mind may be the most reasonable solution to the issues raised in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People who have died while climbing Mount Everest to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename to something. This name is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, it's kind of wordy; I'm sure it could be shortened (even taking out the word "have" would be an improvement). Second, as many people, if not more, die descending from Mount Everest than do climbing it. I realise "climbing" here could be interpreted in the colloquial sense and not necessarily the directional sense, but as long as we're renaming it we may as well clear up this problem too. I'm unsure of the best solution, but I propose three here. Feel free to offer other options.

Option 1: Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest. This mirrors the parent category, Category:Mountaineering deaths.

Option 2: Category:Deaths on Mount Everest. Perhaps "mountaineering" is redundant in option 1, so this option eliminates the word.

Option 3: Category:People who died on Mount Everest. A bit longer; possibly a bit clearer. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mount Everest mountaineering deaths. (A variation on option #1.) Note that personally I am wondering if the whole Category:Death by country tree should itself die (to be "reborn" as a list), but I'm not sure, and would welcome further thoughts. - jc37 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree your variant suggestion is a good one too. Re your other musing: the subcategories of Category:Death by country are typically used primarily as parent categories for the variety of "death in Foo" categories—Category:Executions by country, Category:Murder victims by country, Category:Sport deaths by country, Category:People who died in prison custody by country, Category:Firearm deaths by location, etc., etc. Considering the variety of subcategories involved, the parent categories (Category:Human death in Foo) themselves would not be terribly amenable to a list, unless someone wanted to make People who died in Foo (what fun that would be!), but I'm not sure such a list would be terribly useful if divorced from the context of the specifics, which the subcategories provide. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to one of the two proposed variants of option #1. Options 2 and 3 extend the category's scope to include deaths from all causes (e.g. plane crash). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has a plane ever crashed into Mount Everest? I know I could look, but... Rename to option one or variant. Where does "death by chocolate" fit into this category tree? Hiding T 09:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Chairman, the great state of California casts its vote... Oh, right. Sorry, forgot where I was for a moment! Ahem, well, as I was saying... I cast MY "vote" for Option 1: Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest. Cgingold (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths on Mount Everest in the tradition of eliminating needless words, words which in this case are seemingly intended to restrict the scope of the category, unnecessarily so due to the ~~lack~~ scarcity of articles affected by their presence or absence. I only see one, 1996 Everest Disaster, being an event rather than a person. However it should definitely be part of this category as it is the cause for a large portion of the known deaths on Mt. Everest, and because the article lists people who died on Mt. Everest but for whom no article has yet been written. Furthermore if anybody has died on Mt. Everest whilst doing something other "mountaineering" I see no reason they should not be included, and the same goes for non-human animals. If a mountaineer's dog is deemed "notable" enough for its own article and happened to die on Mt. Everest, it too should be included. Category over-population is, in this case, a laughable concern. — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to option 2 Category:Deaths on Mount Everest per reasoning of CharlotteWebb. Currently Marco Siffredi who died snowboarding on Everest is excluded, but would be included in the option 2 rename. ww2censor (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been pondering the interesting comments from CharlotteWebb and ww2censor, and I think their points are well taken. However, if we were to rename this to Category:Deaths on Mount Everest as suggested, it would have to be removed from its parent cat, Category:Mountaineering deaths -- so that wouldn't make very good sense. If needed, we can simply create Category:Deaths on Mount Everest on its own, to accomodate non-mountaineering deaths. However, I don't see any reason not to use the current category for mountaineering dogs as well as humans, since it doesn't specify "human deaths". And I'm also not sure anybody would raise serious objections to including Marco Siffredi in Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest, since he must have done some sort of climbing before he got on his snowboard, right? At any rate, that's how it looks from here in the Sierra Nevada foothills. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Option 1: Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest as a subcategory of parent category, Category:Mountaineering deaths (Also of "Deaths in India" and "Deaths in China/Tibet" ?) Hugo999 (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

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

Arab-Israeli conflict

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arab-Israeli conflict to Category:Arab–Israeli conflict

Nominator's rationale: WP:DASH. Several categories are affected; I am tagging and listing them now, so please be patient.

In the case of all the following categories, I propose fixing the dashes, in three of them (all involving Gaza), I propose switching naming to alphabetical order for neutrality, in one case (Category:Maps of the 1948 Arab Israeli War), I'm adding a dash that does not otherwise exist, in one case I am proposing a rename to the main article/category (Six-Day War):

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename most per nom and WP:DASH. I agree with all except I think Category:Israel-Gaza conflict should be Category:Israel–Gaza conflict and Category:Israel-Gaza Strip border should be Category:Israel–Gaza Strip border, for similar reasons I gave here. The Gaza Strip is not an independent state so it's only fair that Israel goes "first" in these descriptions. (I've fixed a few mistakes—they were obvious typos and the changes conformed to the proposed name on the category page.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and question Thanks a lot; I always manage to mess up these mass nominations. I'm a bit confused by your states-precendence criterion: why? How do you determine who gets to go first? If you have the a non-governmental agency (e.g. the UN), an inter-governmental agency (e.g. the EU), a constituency (e.g. Alabama), a state (e.g. Israel), and another entity (e.g. Gaza) who gets to go first and why? It seems like this is much more confusing an implies some kind of priority or hierarchy for states that simply doesn't make sense; it is for precisely this reason (e.g. that states aren't inherently first) that I want to avoid any kind of POV by using alphabetical order. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up Also not that "Arabs" go first, whereas they are an ethnicity over "Isralis" who are citizens of a state; is this consistent with what you are proposing? I honestly have no idea how you would determine that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My preference soley relates to a "state" vs. "generally non-recognized state" situation. I'm not suggesting it be applied to "state" vs "ethnicity" or "state" vs. "NGO" situation. It's simply a preference to give member states of the UN primacy over territories that want to be states, but aren't in the UN. But as I said, it's a preference only; I'm not citing any particular rule for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with whatever is grammatically correct. I haven't studied WP:DASH, though, so don't know. I think that Category:Maps of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War should not be changed to Category:Maps of the Six-Day War. Many people not familiar with the ins and outs of the Arab-Israeli conflicts don't know what year that is referring to. I mix it up with the 1973 war. But I don't feel strongly about it either way. I just think that Wikipedia is useful to more people when the year and the warring parties are in the title. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think I'm with Otto on this one. MoS is not equal to NC. And in reading over the MoS (WP:DASH), it makes it clear that in these situations a redirect should be made. So now we're going to use category redirects? Sounds like a not-so-good idea. If there's something I'm missing, please let me know. - jc37 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (Restored my comment [5], which was somehow removed? - jc37 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Actually, as far as dashes are concerned, NC says "follow WP:DASH". Waltham, The Duke of 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Otto4711. This scheme would become more of a hassle for users looking up categories than the benefit of being orthographically correct. __meco (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto, WP:DASH does not apply well to category names. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose category-redirect creation for all these DASH based moves in the last few months is excessive. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, Good'olf and WP:DASH, and use category redirects for the hyphen versions (what is the objection to these useful yet harmless creatures?). Occuli (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The practice with respect to changing hyphens into en dashes in titles is to retain redirects for the versions using a hyphen. This convention is not restricted to articles, and the fact that we can use category soft-redirects renders the argument about difficult-to-replicate characters moot. I fully support renaming all the categories listed here as nominated, with an exception for the Six-Day War, on which I cannot comment (for a change to a nomination regarding spaces, see my comment below). Waltham, The Duke of 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be true if category redirects actually worked. A category in which the contents are split at random across multiple pages is fundamentally broken, but this is exactly what results from soft redirects. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a few discussions of WP:DASH and its application to categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_19#Canadian_Soccer_League_(1986–1992), Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_13#Bilateral_relations, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#Category:Georgian-Abkhazian_conflict —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have taken the liberty to change one nomination: Category:Israel-Gaza Strip border should not move to Category:Gaza Strip–Israel border but to Category:Gaza Strip – Israel border; given that one of the two parts connected by the dash includes a space (in this case the first), the dash itself should be similarly spaced. Waltham, The Duke of 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the MoS rules on hyphens and dashes are well worth reading; they're among the best on the Internet or hard copy, and are an application of pure common sense. Where there's a space within one or both items, the hyphen or dash looks dreadful unless itself spaced. Borders, wars, etc, are oppositions, not the conjoining of two words such as "bright-blue bag" to disambiguate (not "put your shades on, please"). This nonsense about leaving well alone is anti-wiki: wikis are made for adaptation, and we owe it to our readers and ourselves to uphold the best standards of English, including punctuation. Tony (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, until technology exists that means we can make this move without leaving broken categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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