Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Barack Obama - A category to link only 3 articles (one of which I'm not sure is needed-the single sentence that makes up Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is already well covered in Barack Obama) seems like serious overkill, or at least WAY premature--there's know way to know if it will every grow. 71.231.107.188 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic musicians

Relisting. This was a January 19 nomination that had 11 delete votes and 9 keep votes. Since no one apparently wanted to close this as 'no consensus' I'm relisting. When you vote, consider the following from the category:

A category of musicians who perform Roman Catholic music or who have used their celebrity to promote Catholic causes.
Note: Musicians whose articles don't even mention Catholicism should be removed.

I would suggest that in this second discussion that the closing administrator ignore all of the 'I like it' votes. The nomination, based on the discussions is for 'over categorization re: intersection by religion'. Vegaswikian 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to suggest that contributors should ignore the description quoted above. A category should contain all the articles that fit its name, and not those which meet a set of criteria which are too long to be included in the name because they way Wikipedia is produced means that one can have no confidence whatsoever that any such qualifications will be observed over the long term. As for the category itself, religion is of minimal relevance to the work of most musicians who happen to be Roman Catholics. Osomec 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People referred to as Cult Leaders

Delete, or Keep, does this count as a repost? See January 26th discussion. At least this is an attempt to address concerns raised earlier. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We do not want categories labeled with "people referred to as". These are weasel words that may be used to hide ad hominem attacks. Imagine how many U.S. Republicans would land in both "people referred to as freedom fighters" and "people referred to as terrorists" (simultaneously). Dr. Submillimeter 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would include everyone from the Pope to Ralph Nader. References are quite cheap to make. Postdlf 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Called by whom"? Even if you have a published account of someone calling someone else a cult leader, that could be nothing more than one person's opinion, or worse an unfounded personal attack. Also, note that the category only has one article, so odds are there is another category that you can use to categorize that person. Maybe take a look at David Koresh and the categories his article is placed in instead? Dugwiki 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is very clearly a recreation. Osomec 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Futurists

Propose renaming Category:Futurists to Category:Futurist consultants

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Based on the article futurist, it looks like this category could contain consultants who work on futurology. However, it also seems to broadly sweep up any science-fiction writer who has ever written about the future. For consultants, this category describes a defining characteristic, but for science-fiction writers, it is not defining to be called "futurist". The proposed name change may make the category more useful. Deletion may also be an option. Dr. Submillimeter 18:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Futurologists or (second choice) as per noml. I thought a Futurist was a member of an early 20th century art movement. Cloachland 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See Futurism. I think "futurist" could also refer to the 20th century art movement. The term could refer to many things. Dr. Submillimeter 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CJOH people

Delete - CJOH is the Ottawa affiliate of CTV. We do not want to categorize people by whether they worked for specific network affiliates, especially since they may later work with other network affiliates or companies. Dr. Submillimeter 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as the first independent TV station in Canada, CJOH was a breading ground for talent that populated many position in North America. Only the CBC network contributed more. It is unique in this regard.cmacd 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New or Split categories Would it be more appropriate to create the Ottawa news reporters and/or Ottawa news anchors categories?--JForget 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan

Merge into Category:Ku Klux Klan members, current / former. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this was intended to document that someone had left the Klan, probably renounced it... As labelling a living person a "Ku Klux Klan member" implies that they still are, this may be libelous if they no longer are. Just a thought... Postdlf 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and note in the category description for Klan members that the category includes both former and current. Otto4711 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this cat for members that renounced their membership and the other cat for those that are active members or died as members. I agree with Postdlf's comment, especially in regard to WP:BLP. As for Otto's concern, that is a simple matter of editing. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge As per the nom, categories normally aren't supposed to distinguish between "current" and "former" members. (I don't remember off hand which guideline talks about that though.) However, I can understand if other editors want to possibly make an exception in this case due to the distinct difference in public perception between being a "current KKK member" and a "former KKK member". Dugwiki 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I come to this as an outsider - I haven't touched articles on this topic until the category merging. I was surprised that the Ku Klux Klan members category didn't include ex members. The categories of member of Senate and Congress, for example include many people who were not in office when they died. Arnold is in the category Professional bodybuilders and American film actors although he now works as the governor of California. I don't think it's necessary or accurate to have an "ex-clan" category. After all, it would not be accurate in regards to people who quitely leave the Klan vs. those who publicly "turn" on the clan. Wouldn't it be better to put Johnny Lee Clary, for example in both Category:Ku Klux Klan members and Category:African Americans' rights activists. --GunnarRene 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We would certainly have WP:BLP problems if people were added to the Klan member category without sourcing, but if the article says that they were once a member, then they should be categorized with those who died while still a member. --GunnarRene 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabic phrases

Category:Arabic phrases into Category:Arabic words and phrases

Merge - per recent rename of the parent categories to incorporate the "and phrases" terminology, sub-cat is redundant. Otto4711 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto4711. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phi Beta Kappa members

Delete - For those people who do not know, Phi Beta Kappa is a United States academic honor society for undergraduate students. For many of the people listed in this category (such as George H. W. Bush and Peyton Manning), the honor is only one of many general achievement awards that they have received. Moreover, membership in the honor society has little to do with these people's later achievements (such as managing the United States or managing the Indianapolis Colts offense). This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per nom. This is just clutter, as no one is notable because of this. Postdlf 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nom and Postdlf. Otto4711 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note that there are several similar categories to delete. Cloachland 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically falls under the reasoning of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners, which recommends that award winners use list articles instead of categories. Dugwiki 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neoconservatives

Delete, the term "neoconservative" is extremely controversial and the category in question is primarily being used on Wikipedia as a political statement instead of as an impossibly objective categorization. Perhaps those who self-identify as neoconservatives would qualify for the cat, but even that seems like a stretch. It is one thing to call someone a "conservative," as that is a far more objective and verifiable description, but neoconservative is an undeniably loaded (and thus unacceptable) term. DLand ^TALK 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, far more POV and used as a perjorative than "conservative," which was itself judged too vague and POV to function as a category. See recent CFD for Category:American conservatives. Political philosophy is something to explain and source in article text, not something to blandly state in a category name as if it were a precise and objectively factual classification. Postdlf 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete controversial, subjective category. Doczilla 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diabetics

Category:Diabetics by nationality

Category:Fictional diabetics

Category:American diabetics

Category:Argentine diabetics

Category:Australian diabetics

Category:Austrian diabetics

Category:British diabetics

Category:Cambodian diabetics

Category:Canadian diabetics

Category:Egyptian diabetics

Category:English diabetics

Category:Ethiopian diabetics

Category:Filipino diabetics

Category:French diabetics

Category:Italian diabetics

Category:Nauruan diabetics

Category:Scottish diabetics

Category:Somali diabetics

Category:South African diabetics

Category:Vietnamese diabetics

An earlier request to rename these did not meet with consensus. However, at the end of that debate, several people suggested these should be deleted as not a defining characteristic. Hence this renomination. >Radiant< 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Most people are not notable because they have diabetes. Instead, they are notable for their other accomplishments (acting, playing baseball, etc.). Dr. Submillimeter 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous discussion over possible rename. "Diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate and medically inaccurate. Category:Diabetics and its subcategories because "diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate. Even though you'll hear some professionals misuse the term, they should know better. People are not their diseases. Medically this category’s name is not the most accurate. Everyday conversation should not determine how a medical category is named. If we cannot agree on a rename, we need to delete this unfair categorization just like we delete lists by hair color, height, allergies, etc. People are not their diseases. Everyday conversation should not determine how a medical category is named. If we cannot agree on a rename, we need to delete this unfair categorization just like we delete lists by hair color, height, allergies, etc. Doczilla 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No justification has been attempted for singling this set of categories out from the many categories for diseases. Cloachland 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although I'm hardly married to the category tree. I don't see any justification for singling out this one disease amongst others so categorized. As for the notion that these should be deleted because "diabetic is an adjective," pretty much every dictionary agrees that it can be used as a noun just fine. Whether or not "diabetic" is the 100% proper term that medical professionals ought to be using, the simple fact is that if someone says "I'm a diabetic." no one is going to respond "a diabetic what?" Common sense and ease of use should tell us that using the noun form of "diabetics" in category names is acceptable. Otto4711 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if appropriate articles exist I partially agree with Dr. Submillimeter above that such a large portion of the population has diabetes that it's not normally a characteristic worth categorizing. However, that being said, it might be that there are some people for whom having diabetes is significantly included in their article. I can't think of any off-hand, but given the scope of potential people I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility. If there are people on Wikipedia who are actually notable, at least in part, for having diabetes, then the category should be kept for those people. If, however, there are no such articles, then the categories should simply be deleted as having no appropriate articles. Dugwiki 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open air preachers

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

{{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
{{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
{{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
{{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

{{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.

Talk page notices

{{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.

Miscellaneous

{{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia. delete, recreation. >Radiant< 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as repost of Preachers, see discussion of April 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}

Category:Historic cinemas in the United Kingdom

Category:Historic cinemas in the United Kingdom into Category:Cinemas in the United Kingdom

Merge, Several of these are still standing, so it is a POV category based on someones idea of signficance. Pinoakcourt 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - "Historic" is a point-of-view word that should be avoided. Categorization using an alternative name may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Cloachland 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Segregationists

Should be "American segregationists". >Radiant< 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm sure that some group called "segregationists" existed somewhere else at some time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. A category with an explicitly US ambit. --Xdamr^talk 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete This category, as with all categories grouping people by "support" for an idea or institution is highly problematic and subject to POV and OR problems. As a category, there is no nuance; J. William Fulbright was a segregationist in a different way from Orval Faubus, who is also to be distinguished from the likes of J. B. Stoner. People like Robert Byrd and John C. Stennis are included despite that they moderated or changed their position over time. A list is clearly in order. Randy Weaver's inclusion is mysterious and illustrates a further weakness of scope; I think it's safe to say he rejects the authority of the U.S. government and seeks racial separatism, not merely racial segregation. Category:Southern Manifesto is at least sourceable; "Segregationists" is more like "Pro-choice politicians" or "Critics of George W. Bush," the likes of which we've mostly eliminated.-choster 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quakerism in the United Kingdom

I think this category is unhelpful, and likely to remain so; currently it only contains 1 article and 1 subcategory, and is unlikely to grow dramatically. The WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is in the process of discussing a few new categories that would more effectively handle what this category could be used for (like categories for Quaker organizations). Further, from my review of the Naming conventions this category does not match the typical conventions used around nationality. Ahc 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be more conventional for nationality ones? I know it may not grow, but it (and other 'by nationality' ones) could be run in parallel with the organisations, individuals etc ones. I principally created it as a denominational subcat for Category:Christianity in the United Kingdom by denomination, rather than principally a subcat of Category:Quakerism, in any case. I feel Quakerism should be represented there, which might not best be done by having an international cat like Quakerism as the subcat of a national one (Christianity by denomination in the UK). So, tentatively, Keep, unless the consensus goes the other way.Neddyseagoon - talk 09:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guerilla asso

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, nonsense. Both entries were otherwise categorized, with this serving no apparent function. Postdlf 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inexplicable. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Kurotsuchi mayuri 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. --Xdamr^talk 14:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Girls with Guns

Delete, or Keep, I'm not totally convinced that this is really a genre, despite what other people have to say about it. If you want to keep it, please suggest a good place for it. I've parked it under Category:Action anime for the moment, but that's not a very good fit. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism and not a distinct genre. The category's description: "Action genre featuring at least one main action actress" is not even tailored to the name, as not all female action leads use guns (e.g., Uma Thurman as "Beatrix Kiddo" in Kill Bill). At best, this is a colloquialism that is inappropriate to use for a category title. Judging from what pops up when you google the phrase, I think it's more of a fetish. Postdlf 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Postdlf Kurotsuchi mayuri 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as observed by Postdlf, this is a non-distinct neologism. (Although the nomination—"Delete, or Keep"—rather raised a smile :) ). --Xdamr^talk 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. Osomec 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FTV Girl

Delete, we once had a problem with Models by company, we don't want to create Porn stars by company. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hardly the career-defining equivalent of Playboy Playmate. Postdlf 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places named for Presidents of the United States and subcategories

Speedy delete, recreation of previously deleted Cities named for Presidents of the United States. True, not exactly the same, but "Places..." was proposed as a rename in that CFD and deletion was chosen instead. But I'm listing here just to make sure that people agree this was covered. Regardless, these just link similarly named subjects that are otherwise dissimilar (even less similar than in the CFD'd "Cities" category), almost like a re-ambiguator. Postdlf 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Categories like these generally contain articles on places that have little in common with each other aside from their names. Since these are essentially recreations, they should all be speedy deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you mean Madison Avenue in Manhattan has nothing in common with Madison Parish, Louisiana? Shocking... ; ) Postdlf 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedy if recreated, otherwise still delete them. May be worth a list article if properly referenced, not sure about that though. Otto4711 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. ~ Bigr Tex 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio stations in Syracuse

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Syracuse to Category:Radio stations in Syracuse, New York

Rename, ambiguous. Postdlf 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Syracuse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per standard naming conventions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per conventional form to remove ambiguity. --Xdamr^talk 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American space travelers

Merge into Category:Space tourists or Category:American astronauts, as needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many people in "space tourists," but should we subdivide that by nationality anyway? Otherwise, we might end up with some people in that who may not have another nationality-occupation category applicable. Postdlf 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a few "Space tourists" ... I wouldn't bother dividing them until there are a hundred or so. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Now that I've looked around Category:Space I have a headache. Anousheh Ansari belongs in Category:Space tourists, but there should be an obvious way to get from Category:Astronauts to Category:Space tourists without having to traverse up the tree to Category:Space and back down. ~ Bigr Tex 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DumDum Boys members

Merge both into Category:DumDum Boys members, current / former. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; categories shouldn't distinguish between past and present status. Postdlf 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Kurotsuchi mayuri 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian denominations

Someone created a separate category for each Australian coin. They should be in Category:Australian coins. And I should add that this is a nomination from a couple of days ago that never got a discussion (I hope I'm fixing it correctly). Ingrid 01:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I'm sorry, but isn't this a duplicate request of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4#Australian denominations? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the original nomination had messed up discussion links, {{cfm}} umbrella tags can be tricky to get right. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please direct this discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4#Australian denominations. Dr. Submillimeter 09:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]