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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Animation heroes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete- Overcategorization There could possibly be more than 10 heroes in each animated show. It also would be a POV. For example, one person could see an animated character as a hero, while another person could see them as a villan. UnDeRsCoRe 00:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete senseless category. Note that this was created without any parent categories, a sure sign of the failure to investigate and/or understanding existing category structure and guidelines. Postdlf 01:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If this category had all the articles that could be classified under it, it would consist of pretty much every comic book character, as there is no objective criteria for being a hero versus a somewhat good villan or just a minor character. - Amarkov ^babble 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - topic more than covered by Category:Animated characters -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Wryspy 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I think I'm going to start making a list of words to avoid in a category title - hero appears to be one of them. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Be sure to put "anti-hero" on that list, Jc37. CovenantD 04:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, The category Category:Fictional heroes already covers this. Shannernanner 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unmanageable category. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 03:57, 11 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was delete both. the wub "?!" 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Pro-choice politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pro-life politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I first noticed this category earlier today while working on West Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006, of which Shelley Moore Capito is the incumbent. Capito is listed in Category:Pro-choice politicians, apparently due to her inclusion on this list of endorsements. However, I quickly found this page, which clearly indicates that her voting record is not one that the average American would consider "pro-choice". Indeed, if any single-issue voter in this district is that hung up on the subject of abortion, they will almost certainly vote for her opponent, who is pro-choice. In addition, the Democratic Party blog Ourcongress.org has the following to say about Capito: "On abortion, for example, she takes a straight pro-life line yet invariably tacks on empathetic language designed to make her hardline position sound moderate. [1]" So all in all, Capito's overall position on this issue appears to be a matter of opinion, depending on one's own POV. Only when you narrow the issue down can you pigeonhole her as being definitively "for" or "against" a certain abortion-related issue.

So after looking over all of this, I can't help but feel that these two category names are irreparably POV. The term "pro-choice" is too vague to be of an unquestionable meaning; "pro-choice" on what, exactly? Abortion itself? Late-term abortion? Embryonic stem cell research? Parental notification? Etc. The only possible remedies I can see are either a renaming to the somewhat harsh (and not particularly NPOV themselves) Category:Pro-abortion politicians/ Category:Anti-abortion politicians, or else to break down the categories into more factually-verifiable subcats (for example, Category:Politicians favoring embryonic stem cell research/ Category:Politicians opposed to embryonic stem cell research). My initial guess is that most editors aren't going to want to do either, so my !vote is to delete both, though I'm quite amenable to splitting both per my previous sentence if there's any support for it.

For those outside the United States, I should point out that many voters in this country consider a politician's positions on abortion-related issues to be one of the single biggest factors that determine their vote. Given that, I think such largely unverifiable, sweeping, slapdash tagging of politicians as universally "pro-choice" or "pro-life" is a particularly bad idea for Wikipedia, and could even eventually result in a so-tagged politician complaining to WP:OFFICE about having their positions misrepresented (or worse).

(Note: These categories were technically up for CfD a while ago, but that was only because someone shoved them and a number of other categories into a barely-related CfD, seeking POV renames as a WP:POINT violation. As far as I can tell, this is the first legit CfD ever for these categories.) -- Aaron 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete: divisive and not the sort of information which sells an encyclopedia. GilliamJF 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The categories, and any possible renaming, for that matter, split by implication what is an incredibly complex subject into two camps. Entirely ignored is the possibility that someone may be against abortion, but still think others should be free to do it. Even the proposed split does that to some effect. - Amarkov ^babble 23:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. Way too complex of a subject for an encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. These categories stupidly simplify individual positions into two catchphrases. IF an individual's views on abortion are significant to his biography, his article should explain those views. Categories like this just equivocate, papering over genuine differences. Furthermore, issues are a poor basis for categorization because every politician has opinions on every issue, and there's no reasonable way to sort out the "important" ones that deserve categories—the end result is a flood of category tags at the bottom of every article. Category:Politicians that endorse ethanol? Postdlf 01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both and leave {{ deletedcategory}}. Given the time and energy these sensitive/controversial "pro"/"anti" issues sometimes consume, maybe the notables involved might best reside in single categories whose names follow a non-partisan formula... "People known for views on Issue"...?  Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as recreation, and create a new speedy criterion on the base of this since we see it a lot. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. These are a waste of energy that could be used more construtively. Wilchett 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per above. Wryspy 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Ouch. As the person who allegedly "shoved them and a number of other categories into a barely-related CfD, seeking POV renames as a WP:POINT violation" I'm a little hurt by such a statement. The relevant discussions are at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_24#abortion_related_categories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_24#Category:Pro-life_politicians. It wasn't so much a point issue as an attempt to get a clear consensus on all such categories. They were certainly treated as valid nominations at the time, and discussed without any accusations in a considered manner. As to my thoughts here,
• I'd like to once again register that I'd see deletion as the best option, per my previous arguments in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_24#abortion_related_categories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_24#Category:Pro-life_politicians. Hiding Talk 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Oh no, Hiding, I wasn't talking about you at all, and never knew about those CfDs until I saw your links to them just now in the above post. The WP:POINT reference in my nom is this mess, which took place in June 2006. (Nobody listed your CfDs on the category talk page, so I just presumed the only one listed there was the only one that had ever taken place.) -- Aaron 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Bloody sods law ain't it. Such unjustified umbrage taken. They say pride cometh before a fall too, don't they. My apologies for taking the wrong end of the stick. Hiding Talk 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - another "supporter/critic of <issue>" category. The defining difference (so far) is to categorise by membership in an organisation not by issue. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Touchy subject; can be abused pretty easily. Have to watch out for Politicians' aides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold ( talk • contribs) 18:05, October 9, 2006
• Delete. The main problem is that it is impossible to provide a reference for the inclusion of a person in a category. The article should discuss the person's political views with appropriate citations; categories that do so without attribution possibly violate WP:BLP. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete (speedy if recreated). Pavel Vozenilek 13:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and protect against re-creation. - choster 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as POV. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is quite measurable. The initial proposers deals with misuse more than whether this a valid category. Misuse can be dealt with pretty easily. In the US just see who gets 90%+ at either NARAL Pro-Choice America or the National Right to Life Committee. Outside the US you can also check voting records. Politicians describe this way, run this way, and therefore it is notable to their public life.-- T. Anthony 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why those two organizations? Each has its share of critics even on its own "side" of the issues. Moreover, I don't think they rate politicians outside the United States. - choster 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • • I said that outside the US you can also check voting records. You can also add several other rating services and average the results. Also factor their stated positions on their web-page if they have one. If 5-10 organizations, and the individual's political website, agree they are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice it's sensible to put them there. Besides they're politicians, placing them by issues is perfectly logical. It's like Category:Actors by role or Category:Musicians by instrument. At the very least issue-oriented categorizing makes as much as placing them by ethnicity ( Category:German-American politicians) or former occupation ( Category:American actor-politicians)-- T. Anthony 09:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Hopelessly POV category without adequate sourcing or granularity requirements. Tbeatty 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above commentaries. ThuranX 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. We do not need cats for every position on every issue in American politics. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You know abortion isn't a political issue just in the US. See Abortion in Brazil, Aktion Leben, Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, German Federal Constitutional Court abortion decision, Operation Rescue New Zealand, Portuguese referendum on Abortion, 1998, and Right to Life Australia.-- T. Anthony 14:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, as noted, "pro-choice" and particularly "pro-life" encompass a range of positions on a range of issues and as any follower of Mitt Romney can attest, placing someone in a camp is a subjective exercise. - choster 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That not everyone clearly fits in either camp does not make the whole thing subjective or worthless. It's not necessary, or desirable, to put every politician in one or the other category. In addition that you can theoretically be in both camps also does not make it subjective. Taoism tends to be non-exclusive so many Taoists are also of other faiths as well. Yet we still have Category:Taoists A musician in Category:Jazz saxophonists may also be in Category:Jazz clarinetists. In this case the categories, ideally, are to be for those that do clearly fit in one camp or the other. I know I'm going to lose here though, but still that's my say.-- T. Anthony 09:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It sounds like you're trying to say that someone could be categorized as pro-life and pro-choice, in the same manner that someone could play the saxophone as well as the clarinet? Taoism is not the opposite or negation of anything, in the manner that pro-choice is a simplistic label for "favors abortion rights" and pro-life means "doesn't favor abortion rights." And I'm not a musician, but I don't believe the saxophone is the denial of the clarinet either. So I really don't understand your comparisons. Could you restate to make your point more clear? Postdlf 17:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I was responding to choster who indicates whether one fits as one or the other is subjective. There are politicians who describe themselves as Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, but that doesn't negate that there are politicians firmly in one camp. Although Taoism is non-exclusive there are individuals who basically are exclusively associated with Taoism, hence the category. The instrument statement is just about how positions can be a defining trait in politicians, just as an instrument can be in a musician. That said I see the problem with the analogy. However why should this be any different than categorization like Category:LGBT politicians from the United States or Category:Methodist politicians? At least this is referring to something directly related to politics. (As there are no Methodist political parties AFAIK)-- T. Anthony 19:48, 14 October 2006 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 already deleted. David Kernow ( talk) 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Comic Book Movie actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category is misleading. The name makes it sound as if they are actors in a comic book. Should be either deleted or renamed to " Category:Actors who have portrayed comic book characters" UnDeRsCoRe 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete this unnecessary category that violates several Wikipedia guidelines including title capitalization. Right now, WikiProject Comics members are seriously debating how to clean up categories. Breakdowns for every type of casting would be never-ending. Actors who played comic book characters, actors who played werewolves, actors who played dentists, actors who played butchers, bakers, candlestick makers. Stop it, stop it, stop it. Doczilla 00:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment- Agreed, they should stop creating these useless categories. UnDeRsCoRe 00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete useless category. Postdlf 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, bad idea and too broad. Title also a little unclear. Over-categorisation. Hiding Talk 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - After seeing several of these kinds of things on CfD, I'm thinking that maybe all the "actors/models of <creative work>" should probably be deleted.
  • 1.) It over-populates the bottom of actor pages.
  • 2.) It's much better handled as a part of a "List of characters", which contains the actors who portrayed them.
  • 3.) The usefullness of this as a category for research is spurious at best (though I'm willing to listen to examples where they would be useful for research)
  • 4.) As the similar model categories got the axe already, so too should these actor ones.
  • 5.) The only criteria for admission is that you have an article.
• I think 5 reasons should be enough for now. (copied from a similar discussion) - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify to List of actors by comic book character. — Reinyday, 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I just don't see the point to this category. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:02, 9 October 2006 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 keep. the wub "?!" 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Baby Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We have a List of Pokémon by Stage already, so there's really no use for this. Not to mention that it's not entirely agreed on what makes a baby pokémon. Amarkov ^babble 21:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep We have a Basic/Stage 1/Stage 2 cat, why not baby? It's a good way to organize information, and that list is soon to be malformed by smerging with a hundred others. And it is defined what a Baby Pokémon is, they can't breed and they were priorly only available via breeding. H ig hway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and make the definition in the category header more clear. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 03:57, 11 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Animal control to Category:Pest control

• Rename, because "pest control" is a more established phrase. GilliamJF 21:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per GilliamJF. In the United States, at least, the term "animal control" is generally synonymous with " dogcatcher". All the articles tagged with this category are about killing bugs. -- Aaron 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above; less vague. David Kernow ( talk) 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename for the reasons already stated above UnDeRsCoRe 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 03:57, 11 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename all using "Solar System". Corresponding articles noted below also (being) renamed. David Kernow ( talk) 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: I added the tag to these categories as well:

Rename Category:Solar system to Category:Solar System

Rename Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar System

Rename Category:Solar system in fiction to Category:Solar System in fiction

Rename Category:Solar system images to Category:Solar System images

The following articles may also need to be moved if the consensus here is to rename:

List of solar system bodies formerly considered planets to List of Solar System bodies formerly considered planets (this is a redirect page created on 2006-05-14).

Table of planets and dwarf planets in the solar system to Table of planets and dwarf planets in the Solar System

Solar system in fiction to Solar System in fiction

Lastly, see the discussion below regarding the deletion of Category:Solar system natural satellites. If kept, the category would need to be renamed as well.
— Chidom  ^talk  08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Back to the original nomination/discussion:

• Rename Category:Planets of the solar system to Category:Planets of the Solar system; to follow case used by related categories/articles. David Kernow ( talk) 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

(Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Speedy renaming)

I also added the tag to the category page; it had none.— DomBot  ^talk 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Object - Per Solar System, it appears that either both words should be in caps or neither should be in caps. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In which case, it's probably better if both are capitalised, since - rightly or wrongly - "solar system" tends to get used for any star's planetary system. Also, as you point out, the main article is at Solar System. Grutness... wha? 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • What happened to stellar system? And the use of 'the' makes it clear that it is a specific solar system. Maybe "Planets of Earth's solar system" or "Planets of system Sol"? :-) No, I'm joking. Category:Planets of the Solar System seems fine. Carcharoth 07:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Is "stellar" mostly used with reference to more than one star...?  Unsure, David Kernow ( talk) 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Seems to me from the above that one or both the first letters deserve capitaliz/sation. (There is only one S/system associated with the star Sol.)  Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System. --- RockMFR 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• American Heritage Dictionary* entry is: "solar system...often Solar System". Since either both lower-case or both upper-case appear to be correct, Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System to match the main article style: Solar System.

*solar system. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 08, 2006, from system Dictionary.com website— Chidom  ^talk  05:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename using Solar System - to match main article. Dugwiki 16:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System. Wryspy 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System. - While Wikipedia convention seems to be to have the second word in lower case, I concede the points above. (Didn't we just have a similar discussion?) - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System - Although "Solar system" or "Solar System" are acceptable in various scientific journals (as a search with the ADS Query Form will reveal), "Solar System" is preferable for Wikipedia. The noun is a proper noun that refers to a specific place, so the first letters of both words should be capitalized much like the first letter of the word "city" is capitalized in "New York City". (Could someone check to see if this is Wikipedia policy? I have not been able to find this clearly stated.) George J. Bendo 06:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 04:00, 11 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. List looks good btw :-) the wub "?!" 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. This is non-standard way for people categorization. bogdan 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, concur. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Recury 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment, this is a shame since I created this to differentiate between those currently in the public eye who work for the BBC as journalists and those who for whatever reason do not. I will however support the proposed action (and I promise not to create this category a third time if it isn't wanted). I had previously created Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists though this was deleted per the guidelines of the Manual of Style. Wikiwoohoo _talk 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say the solution is for you to create a List of former BBC newsreaders and journalists, prefaced by something along the lines of " As of October 2006, the following people are journalists and newsreaders who have worked for but are not currently employed by the BBC: ..."   Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 05:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That is a good idea, I will do that. Thank you for the suggestion. Wikiwoohoo _talk 14:00, 13 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was delete both. the wub "?!" 21:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete both of these categories for toy lines that dump in every article on a Marvel Comics character who had an action figure. Bad idea. The articles for both lines already contain lists. Postdlf 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Both are useless, redundant categories that verge on advertising. Every Marvel character will repeatedly get categorized with multiple toy lines, often from the same company. Listify. Don't categorize. Doczilla 23:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, a list better serves the purpose. Or create a category for characters made into action figures. But then you'd have to put Sir John A. Macdonald in it. No, no, delete. And check for other action figure line categories. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as bad idea, over-categorisation and best implemented through article space rather than category structure. Lists would work better if thought non-trivial. Hiding Talk 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Thinking about every fictional character that's ever had a toy/lunchbox/etc tie-in. Dracula and Frankenstein - not to mention Superman and Spider-Man - would have category lists longer than their articles, I think. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - It's just the beginning of the crazy. A bad precedent. I don't want to see Mego/Superpowers/Mini-Mates categpries soon. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:05, 9 October 2006 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 keep all. the wub "?!" 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The Erdős number is the "distance" between a mathematician and Erdős, i.e. people who co-authored a paper with Erdős have number 1, those who co-authored with Erdős' co-authors have number 2, etc. (it's based on Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon)

It might be an interesting piece of geek/academic/maths humour, but I don't think it is appropriate to have categories for such trivia. A list would be better. bogdan 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Erdős number 1
• Category:Erdős number 2
• Category:Erdős number 3
• Category:Erdős number 4
• Category:Erdős number 5 (late addition as only just created -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)) reply
• Delete/Listify as nominator. bogdan 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete - this does not contain any important individual about the person. , indeed I say the category is harmful as it establishes undue importance to one particular measure, the Erdos number is no more important than say the Hilbert Number. It also gives the wrong idea of what Small world phenomenon are about, its not so much any individual person but the conectivity of the entire network. In Template talk:Infobox Scientist there was a recient discussion about the Erdos Number field and the result was that it should be deleted. -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Yeah, but one of the arguments was pre-existing categories...can't have it both ways  :-) bunix 01:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete per nom and Salix alba. -- Aaron 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not a chance.-- Mike Selinker 06:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The nomination says "it's based on Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", but I believe it would be more accurate to say the kevin bacon one is based on this.. and Erdos numbers are considerably more important the a "Hilbert number", or any other such kind of number, because they widely known and understood among mathematicians, and usually surprisingly small - since Erdos collaborated with over 500 distinct mathematicians.. which i'm guessing is the most ever.. so Erdos numbers are surprisingly well-documented; it's much more than "maths humour". but i guess i only get a single vote.. Mlm42 09:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That said, it is true Erdos numbers 3 and greater become fairly uninteresting (even i have an erdos number of 3, so maybe i'm biased in this discussion!).. really, only categories for Erdos numbers 1 and 2 would be of interest.. from the sounds of it, they're all going to get deleted anyway. :) Mlm42 09:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Actually all Erdos numbers upto 5 are are interesting. Famous guys such as Neils Bohr and Louis de Broglie are a 5. Six and above then becomes less significant. I, myself, am a 3, so say this without bias :-) bunix 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment 50% of mathematicians have an Erdos numbers of 5 or less (from the article the average Erdős number is 4.65). Indeed we see that 504 have EN1, 6593 have EN2, 33605 have EN3, 83642 have EN4, 87760 have EN5 and 40000 have a higher EN. That gives a total of about 250,000 people. [2] We have about 2500 articles on mathematicians giving aproximatly 5, 65, 336, 836, 877 articles in each category. Is there any point in a category which list half of all mathematicians?-- Salix alba ( talk) 09:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Yes, because the numbers indicate degrees of separation. That meaning does not vanish simply because there are a lot of mathmaticians. Salix, honey, please also note the wikipedia only lists the notable mathematicians. SuperGirl 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Listify and delete. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Maybe a person's Erdos number is worth mentioning in the article, but I doubt that it's important enough to categorize people on. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, and I doubt that this would be of much interest to anyone but mathematicians (to be honest, I doubt that even most mathematicians would consider it a significan characteristic either). A list might be okay though, so I would support listification. — Cswrye 14:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment It is significant to us mathematicians. That's why the American Mathematical Society database, by popular demand, now allows you to compute Erdos number. bunix 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Also it is false to use the "general interest" argument. There is a lot of esoterica in other fields contained on the wikipedia. Let's not forget that. There's a lot of biographies of pornography stars for example. Erdos numbers are relatively harmless in comparison. SuperGirl 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 14:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep 1 and 2, Delete the rest, per suggestion above. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify. — Reinyday, 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is amusing trivia that warrants its own article, but it does not warrant the creation of new categories. George J. Bendo 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep for 1 and 2. Neutral on others. Erdos numbers are the original classification of this type, with the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" being based on them, rather than vice versa. Bluap 15:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify and delete. Didn't we have this discussion before? Keeping only 1 and 2 invites the others to be recreated in the future. Vegaswikian 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: How about keeping 1 and 2, and having a "3 or greater" category for the rest? That should avoid the recreation of the others. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment That defeats the idea of Erdos number which is a degree of separation measure. The categories must be kept separate to be meaningful to mathematicians. SuperGirl 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - relatively harmless, Erdos is an unusual case. Guettarda 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep 1 and 2, Delete 4. No opinion on 3.-- T. Anthony 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per bunix who I found persuasive.-- T. Anthony 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This attribute has nothing to do with what makes these people notable. Hawkestone 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment True. However, that's not all what a biography is about. A biography is also about a person's relationships, connections, and influences. Erdos number is a relational parameter. Gotta go with the times :-) bunix 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment EN does not measure in any meaningful way a persons conections. It says a lot about Erdos's influence but little about anyone elses. If we seriously wanted to measure a persons influence we would list the number of co-authors or the number of citations. -- Salix alba ( talk) 09:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Salix, honey, you are way out of date. Explain to me why the official MathSciNet database computes Erdos number if it is so unmeaningful. Sure, Erdos is an arbitrary reference point. But so is the origin on any graph. Relative distances are meaningful when the reference is arbitrary. SuperGirl 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Erdos number is very interesting indicator of scientific collaboration clustering. It is becoming an increasingly popular idea, and is pursued with fervour by scientists/mathematicians themselves [3]. It is so well recognised that even the mainsteam math database of the American Mathematical Society (AMS) called MathScieNet [4] allows users to reliably compute their Erdos Numbers. Keep all Erdos categories from 1 to 5 separate. Do not bundle together...too confusing. Keep 5 as the maximum, as all the really famous scientists are captured in the first five. Six onwards gets less significant. bunix 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Erdos number is considerably more than just amusing to many mathematicians, and is in much more widespread use than any other similar measure of relationship (that I know of). Madmath789 06:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep in some form or another. It is curious to see stated here that the category should be deleted in favour of a list, while on AFD the usual recommendation is to delete lists because, after all, that's what categories are for. Although I think the category form is easier to maintain I have no strong preference for one or the other. But this information on a very notable concept should definitely be preserved.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 09:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. Next I suppose someone will want to delete Fields Medal winners as a category, because the proposer is only familiar with the Nobel Prize. Sheesh. For mathematicians, an Erdős number of 2 is much more significant than the year of birth, and we keep a category for the latter. If non-mathematicians don't know and don't care, fine; but in mathematics circles this is a natural and notable category. Erdős met and collaborated with hundreds of the finest mathematicians around the globe, which makes the number a useful measure of the mathematician being described. A larger number does not necessarily mean one is a weak mathematician, but a smaller number is an indication of strength. (And, yes, this measure considerably predates Kevin Bacon.) -- KSmrq ^T 09:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm abstaining from this discussion but I think the number is much more an indication of similarity of research interests to Erdős' than it is of general mathematical strength. — David Eppstein 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Category:Erdős number 1. Mathematicians with Erdős number 1 actually deserve an entry in Wikipedia. Include Erdős number has a field in Infobox_Scientist (should be sufficent for larger Erdős numbers). Delete cats for Erdős number bigger than 1 (about 30000 mathematicians have already Erdős number 3!). pom 10:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC). Keep others (as the entry in Infobox_Scientist has been deleted). pom 12:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Keep all Erdos categories from 1 to 5. Just because 30,000 have E number 3 doesn't matter. Only a small subset will be on wikipedia and we mathematically inclined people want to see the number as a relationship measure. Also Infobox scientist not longer supports Erdos numbers (due to bloat) and therefore it is upto the categories to provide this info. 124.182.138.231 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep A significant number of mathematicians find this information important. What does it matter if some others don't? I think Fung Shui is nonsense, but I don't begrudge those who believe in that nonsense to have an article on it. -- Four Dog Night 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Salix alba. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on the categories (fairly harmless, but not particularly important), but I do think that converting to a list would be a bad idea (for one thing, look at the numbers Salix alba gives). Delete them or keep them. JPD ( talk) 13:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep all Erdos categories. Erdos Number is internationally accepted by all mathematicians. As per comment by JPD, lists would be impossible to maintain. This is a classic example of the power of a wiki category put to good use. SuperGirl 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep there is no reason to delete beyond personal opinion. However, in terms of researching relationships and encyclopedic content, erdos numbers have value as a whole beyond any trivia of the individual, they indicate relationships and historicity of publishing. Beyond the encyclopedic value of the set of people and the network of relationships, this is the sort of interpersonal network tool that galvanizes group effort in wikipedia. -- Buridan 16:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Roger Hui 16:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep No reason to have a list; the only annotation I can think of would be the linking paper, and in most cases this is not unique. Restricting the categories to mathematicians born after, say, 1850, might be useful; I don't really care whether Newton's EN is 10 or infinity; it can't be much smaller for purely chronological reasons. . For the same reason, it may be useful to come back to this in fifty years. Septentrionalis 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Trivial form of categorization. I've yet to hear a good explanation of what meaning it has for mathematicians other than being a little bit of trivia. Knowing someone's Erdos number only tells you, in effect, their Erdos number; ergo it has no real meaning outside of its own definition, and as such is probably not a useful form of categorization for Wikipedia (it does not, for example, tell you how famous a mathematician is, or how prominent they are, or how prolific they are — at most it might tell you how often they co-author a paper, but even that would be a purely probablistic approach and not work for many if not most mathematicians with Erdos numbers). If we do keep the Erdos number cat, though, let's then create a Bacon number cat, and give Erdos a Bacon number of 3. I find it hard to believe that a list would be any more difficult to maintain than the categorization; it would be easy to make arbitrary limits known on a list, whereas this is much harder with a categorization. It would also be possible to outline the actual connections for any individual person on a list, which would not be possible in a categorization. (Obviously the comparisons to the Fields Prize and other honors is false; Erdos number is not a prize, nor an honor which is conferred on anyone, nor is it an indication of great triumph like the Fields Prize). -- Fastfission 19:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment The birth year is used for categorization and is even less relevent (as well as nationality or religion) when concerned by someone's scientific production. This is an indicator which may look arbitrary by the choice of its center (the same way that the Dow Jones is arbitrary by the choice of its composition) but this center is either the most prolific mathematician or the second one (depending on Euler's ranking) and its activity has influenced an important part of the modern mathematics, what obvioulsy explain this particular choice. pom 21:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - While it's fundamentally trivial, it's a widespread popular and highly notable trivia in mathematics (the field's people, not the field itself). If enough people talk about it (and essentially everyone in the field does, and knows their EN) then it's worth having here. Georgewilliamherbert 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Highly notable trivia? Trivia is defined as "unimportant piece of information". So, by definition, it can't be "highly notable". :-) bogdan 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep — This is aa well-known (if amusing) measure in mathematics and an interesting example of a virtual community, with potential research value to sociologists, etc. — Jonathan Bowen 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - notable system used by mathmaticians. Johntex\ ^talk 20:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep the first 2 or 3 -- Keep or delete the rest I don't really have a vote for them. Dalf | Talk 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep interesting feature within its field, and does no harm even to readers who might find it trivial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Interesting category to browse, and a well known piece of math folklore. I think categories are one of the greatest things in Wikipedia and that we should have more of them as well as ways too search combinations. I'm sure we'll have that one day and that readers then can find, say, all mathematicians with Erdos number 4 who have won a Fields medall. Or which Nobel prize winners have Erdos number 1. I love trivia like that, and in category space these pieces of information aren't in the way of anyone who don't care. Shanes 23:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep This measure is used by a great number of mathematicians. More than just trivia. LW77 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep All Five. Because, all the discussion for "delete" so far is based on the argument that Erdos number has nothing to do with the acheivement of the person. This is an incorrect strawman argument because the real point is that Erdos number is widespread and notable amoungst mathematicians. Erdos number is a mathematician's "little flag" waved around to identify connectivity in a collaborative cluster. The way the world is clustered into named countries or an army is clustered into named divisions is no different from the way mathematicians want to identify themselves by their Erdos number. Its notability is due to its currency amoungst mathematicians. Arguments about the scientific basis of Erdos numbers do not belong here and are simply not the real point. A CfD is not the correct place for those with a technical Erdos number gripe to vent their angst. SureFire 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per all above. — Mets501 ( talk) 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. At the very least, keep the first few. To quote De Castro and Grossman, "The notion of Erdos number has floated around the mathematical research community for more than thirty years, as a way to quantify the common knowledge that mathematical and scientific research has become a very collaborative process in the twentieth century, not an activity engaged in solely by isolated individuals." (It's from "Famous Trails to Paul Erdös", The Mathematical Intelligencer, 21(3), 51-63, Summer 1999 --- so it's fair to say "forty years" now.) And for Pete's sake, of all the stuff in Wikipedia, you're picking on this? Lunch 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Action I've added this reference to the Erdos number article. -- Four Dog Night 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cool, thanks. I've got another one for you: Caspar Goffman. "And what is your Erdos number?" American Mathematical Monthly, 76(7), 791, August 1969. (Oops, I see you already got it.)

I'd also like to add that if people think categorizing on birthdate is an OK thing to do, I don't see why people don't think this (Erdos number) is an OK thing for categorization too. That is, this point has been brought up by several users above, but I haven't seen a reply. Could someone in favor of deletion comment, and try to convince me? Thanks. Lunch 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Birthdate is important as it sets a persons contributions in the timeline of development of mathematics. It allows people to find out how old they were they wrote various pulbications, and find other mathematicians who were alive at the time, and the major world events which they will have experienced. EN1 shows people who published with erdos. We don't generally list all peoples colobators. We could consider WP:NPOV - undue weight as categorisation implies that this is more than just trivia and can leed to the impressions that Erdos number somehow signifies their importance as a mathematician. It doesn't: Erdos published with basically anyone who stood still long enough, great and lesser mathematicians, including about 400 who don't merit a wikipedia page. Its skewed favoring one brach of mathematics over others. In many cases its WP:OR - take a random EN3, 4 or 5 person say Derek Abbott. Google for "Derek Abbott" "Erdős number" only gives wikipedia. -- Salix alba ( talk) 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I have Erdős number 4, but I don't think this is an important attribute. There is no need for Wikipedia to be promoting this notion. Charles Matthews 09:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment And I think categories on Pokemon characters are mundane too...however, I don't begrudge those readers who want that stuff. There is a large Erdos "cult following" and it is significant enough to let these guys have their category. It's harmless and can be easily ignored by the anti-Erdos number camp. bunix 10:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment this fact only suggests EN should not be a list. The point is not to decide whether EN by itself is an important class but whether it is an interesting indication for mathematicians who deserve an individual entry in Wikipedia. Similarly, the year of birth is not such an important characteristic that we should list all the humans borns in some year, but it should to be included in every biography. pom 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Since the history of mathematics belongs in Wikipedia, and Erdős was notable in 20th-century mathematics, this seems harmless. The phrase "Erdős number" gets 705,000 Google hits, "Hilbert number" gets 188. I'm not aware that categories take up a lot of resources. And maintaining lists (as an alternative) is surely more labor-intensive and less reliable. Nevertheless it's a curiosity. One should not spend a lot of WP resources getting these numbers right. EdJohnston 14:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  try googling again: "26,700 hits". If you google without quotes, you'd get 1,430,000 hits for Bogdan number. :-) bogdan 19:46, 15 October 2006 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. David Kernow ( talk) 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, miscategorised. Its meaning was discussed on [5]. The related template is also unused. With UTF8, redirects and alternative spelling listed in the articles this cat is useless. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. Doczilla 00:43, 9 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Tennessee Lady Volunteers softball players -- Kbdank71 14:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Tennessee Volunteers softball players to Category:Tennessee Lady Vols softball players

• Rename. Women's athletes and teams at the University of Tennessee are formally known as "Lady Volunteers", which is generally shortened by sports media and most fans to "Lady Vols". College softball in the U.S. is exclusively a women's sport. Note that the corresponding category for Tennessee women's basketball players is at Category:Tennessee Lady Vols basketball players. Dale Arnett 16:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. True nuff.-- Mike Selinker 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Tennessee Lady Volunteers softball players - Abbreviations are usually frowned upon in category names, and "Lady Volunteers" is the team's official name anyway. — Cswrye 14:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, but it's not what they're called. If you watch a UConn-Tennessee game, you will hear a hundred mentions of the Lady Vols and likely not one of the Lady Volunteers. It should be "Lady Vols," in the same sense that we have category:New York Knicks players instead of category:New York Knickerbockers players-- Mike Selinker 20:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename both softball and basketball to "Lady Volunteers" (spelled out), per Cswrye. jc37 - 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If we're so tied to official names, then we need to change New York Knicks to New York Knickerbockers, Miami Heat to Miami HEAT, "UConn Huskies" to Connecticut Huskies, and "UMass Minutemen" to Massachusetts Minutemen, to name a few. I was taking a look through the official Tennessee women's athletics site, and found the following:
    • The official women's athletics logo does spell out "Lady Volunteers".
    • However, the URL contains "utladyvols", and the web site is officially branded as UTLadyVols.com.
    • Also, the stories on the official site are at least as likely to use "Lady Vols" as the spelled-out name, if not more so.
    • The official Hall of Fame of the Tennessee women's athletic program is the Lady Vol Hall of Fame.
    • Bottom line: The "Lady Vols" nickname, while not the complete nickname, is just as official as "Lady Volunteers". Also, Mike is right in noting that media are FAR more likely to use "Lady Vols" than "Lady Volunteers". — Dale Arnett 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I don't think that this is comparable to the name "New York Knicks". The "Knickerbockers" name is so archaic that it's hardly used at all. (I don't know enough about the other teams you mentioned to be able to say anything about them.) On the other hand, I hear "Lady Vols" and "Lady Volunteers" quite frequently in the media, and pretty much everyone I know who goes to UT calls them the "Volunteers" instead of the "Vols". If the full name was hardly used at all, I would agree with you, but when both names are used regularly, I would lean towards using the full name. — Cswrye 07:37, 15 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Rivers of Florida, seems a little premature to me ... Meybe someday. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support merge. How many county category tags would the articles for the mighty Mississippi or the omnipotent Ohio have? This is overcategorization. Surely someone genuinely interested in a particular county could include what rivers flow through it in that county's article. Postdlf 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In this case, btw, where the only entry, the Miami River (Florida), appears only to run through that county, it can just be dropped directly in the county category (though please don't do this with larger rivers). No need for a subcategory. Postdlf 02:14, 9 October 2006 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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, as user-orientated. David Kernow ( talk) 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete as personal user cat. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Reinyday, 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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, as user-orientated. David Kernow ( talk) 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete as personal user cat. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Reinyday, 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty -- Kbdank71 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete as empty, or rename to Category:Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara alumni. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename iff it can be populated, if not then delete without prejudice. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support - agree with Radiant. Rename if it can be poplated, delete otherwise. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México alumni, Universidad de las Américas, Puebla alumni, and Category:Instituto Politécnico Nacional alumni, but please keep the old names as a redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• (grouped together for convenience) Concur. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I understand, but also want to keep the this entry CFR tags working... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• American bluegrass musicians
• Bluegrass musicians by nationality
• Delete and merge, since all Bluegrass musicians are American, merge all to Bluegrass musicians. Pink moon1287 14:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Bluegrass musicians, though I might dispute that all bluegrass musicians are American, the majority likely are. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Not all bluegrass musicians are from the US. At least some are from Canada and the Czech Republic has a bluegrass scene with groups like Druhá Tráva. The Russian group Bering Strait has also been considered bluegrass at times. Still there might not be enough from elsewhere, due to Wikipedians relative disinterest in many nations or "rural" art forms, to justify a "by nationality" subcat.-- T. Anthony 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Jc37 due to low number outside U.S. If there are enough, separate categories can be created for non-U.S. musicians as needed, and if several other country categories appear, then eventually the cat can be recreated. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 04:00, 11 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Autonomous University of Nuevo León alumni. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Merge. It looks like it's the difference between Len and León? - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Alumni by university in Mexico, convention of Category:Alumni by university. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:01, 8 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:SACDs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Useless, never-ending category for SACD releases. What's next, a category for music released on LP or CD? Movies on DVD? Dagnabit 11:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per the Super Audio CD article. This isn't all CDs, as User:Radiant suggests, but a specific type. And I think that this could be useful in research. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Music released on Super Audio CD. — Reinyday, 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but Rename to Category:Super Audio CD releases if kept. DVD-Audio and 5.1 Music Disc are similar. Since they appear to not have a category for releases, then we probably don't need this one either. If there are other categories, then consider the delete vote voided. In that case, we need to discuss all of these at one time and any others like them that may be out there. Vegaswikian 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Super Audio CD releases per Vegaswikian. David Kernow ( talk) 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Reinyday. Category:Albums includes Category:Enhanced CDs, Category:Albums in the 33⅓ Series, Category:Box set albums, and Category:EPs. I don't see why SACDs should be excluded. It falls way short of the number of LPs, CDs, or DVDs, probably by a few orders of magnitude. I doubt that the number of articles in this category will ever exceed 500, and when it does it can simply have subcategories added. -- Daniel Olsen 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Enhanced CDs include additional content beyond the audio files that is readable by a CD-ROM, so the actual content of such an album as an enhanced CD release would be different than if it were a vinyl release only, for example. Category:Albums in the 33⅓ Series refers to a series of books, not albums that were released as 33⅓ vinyl records. Box sets are defined by the selling of multiple sources of content in a box, whether it's on audio tape, vinyl, CDs, or SACDs; the specific technology is irrelevant. EPs are designated based on the duration of the album's content, so the technology is again irrelevant. So from what exactly are SACDs being "excluded"? Postdlf 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I don't see how this is appropriate as a category (does it help define or explain the article's subject, does it aid in navigation between relevant related topics), and a list of these releases in any form will only be useful even as trivia if the format fails to catch on. Postdlf 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment If kept, Rename to Category:Super Audio CD releases per discussion above. - jc37 01:13, 15 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Occult Influenced musicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, A recently create category that has an imprecise and inherently WP:POV definition. Musicians have been added to this category on the personal whim of its creator, without any evidence to support their inclusion. Because of the vague nature of the category definition anyone that the creator suspects might be influenced by the occult can be included, leading to a strange mish-mash of unrelated musiciansbeing included. Unless clear, objective criteria can be established this category is meaningless. Gwernol 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Too trivial for a category. Also, this is POV depending on how one defines occult. — Cswrye 02:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per vagaries of "influenced",
  but if kept, rename to Category:Musicians influenced by the occult. Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this judgemental, vaguely defined, citation-deficient, POV-invoking category. Wryspy 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify and then Delete - "influenced/inspired by" requires citations. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete per nom. I really wish not just anyone could create categories... Postdlf 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I guess the idea of making category creation a tool to earn has been thrashed about before, to no avail or consensus...?  Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • We can only dream. I'm pretty sure I've raised the idea once or twice. "Anyone can edit, blah blah blah..."  ; ) Postdlf 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I wonder if it might be better to instead have a category for occult-influenced albums. I imagine there are albums where musicians or groups indicated they intentionally used occult idea as an influence, even though they may not otherwise be "occult-influenced musicians." (At least not consistently occult influenced) Also it might get around that this is possibly insulting as a category-- T. Anthony 10:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 18:22, 13 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Binary minor planets into Category:Binary asteroids

• Merge There doesn't appear to be a real distinction between the two. RandomCritic 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Minor planet, and its talk page, and it's even better explained at Asteroid. - jc37 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, the reverse would make more sense, as not all minor planets are asteroids. In any case, they should not be merged. 70.55.87.17 00:13, 10 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Minor planet satellites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This is a not very useful intermediate category, containing only subcats, all of which already appear at Category:Moons. RandomCritic 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge -- Cat out 10:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Minor planet. See my comment about Category:Binary minor planets, above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jc37 ( talk • contribs)
• Oppose, clean up categorization instead. 70.55.87.17 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This could be a very useful category. George J. Bendo 06:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• If kept or no consensus, at least disambiguate by renaming to Natural satellites of minor planets. David Kernow ( talk) 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment could be Category:Moons of minor planets... but isnt' minor planet now deprecated? 70.51.8.97 02:17, 16 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Solar system natural satellites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This is an otiose category redundant with "Moons" -- there are no moons known outside the solar system. The category contains only one item, Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system which is furthermore inappropriate for it. RandomCritic 06:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment, perfectly valid, citable cateory. There had been discoveries of many natural satelites (planets) on remote stars. Natural satelite includes but is not restricted to "moons" or natural planetary satellites. -- Cat out 10:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and populate with all articles in Template:SolarSatellites Footer. You could argue to rename it to Category:Solar system moons, but you can't say it is redundant with "Moons" as that category houses articles about non-Solar System moons and other subcats like Category:Fictional moons. — Reinyday, 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment could be better at Category:Moons of the Solar System 70.55.87.17 00:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Natural satellites - See the discussion for Category:Planetary Satellites below. George J. Bendo 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename needed, as present name not particularly grammatical. Natural satellites, Moons, Natural satellites of the Solar System or Moons of the Solar System all seem reasonable. David Kernow ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC), generaliz/sed 21:31, 15 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Planetary satellites into Category:Moons

• Merge The category is superfluous and redundant; all moons are "planetary satellites" (in the broad sense implied by this category) and vice versa. RandomCritic 06:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose but would support the reverse, Category:Moons into Category:Planetary satellites. A better category would be Category:Natural satellites -- Cat out 22:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Category:Natural satellites was already discussed and rejected in favor of Category:Moons RandomCritic 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I do not believe the issue was properly explored in either the September 26, 2006 debate or the July 17, 2006 debate. The latter has its primary argument that "Natural Satelites" was too general and would include planets. While the argument is valid, that should not justify the action taken. Natural Satelites of planets can simply be called something like " Category:Natural Satelites of Planets" or " Category:Natural planetary satellites". Proposed categories such as " Category:Natural satellites of Mars" looks very reasonable and spesific. Perhaps it is time to rexamine that desicion. -- Cat out 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps useful to have the following in view...?:

"A natural satellite is a non-man-made object that orbits a planet or other body larger than itself. They are often called moons. The term natural satellite may also refer to a planet orbiting a star, as is the case with planets orbiting the Sun and even the Sun itself as it orbits the galactic center of the Milky Way."

— Opening lines of the English Wikipedia's Natural satellite article, as of 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Moon is Earth's only natural satellite. It has no formal English name other than "the Moon", although it is occasionally called Luna (Latin for moon), or Selene (Greek for moon), to distinguish it from the generic term "moon" (referring to any of the various natural satellites of other planets).

They both work by their dicionary def no doubt but "Moons" is a bit of a confusing term. After all Moon is a single object orbiting earth. Rename should be done for clarity purposes. The term neaded an introduction to clarify what a moon is after all. -- Cat out 09:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• David, can you clarify whether you would find " Category:Natural satellites of planets" problematic, since it doesn't fall into the trap your quote springs. Hiding Talk 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Should be fine, I think – but how about:

... or am I missing something...?  (Suddenly I feel I am...)  Regards, David ( talk) 05:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom as "Moons" is not confusing (all elementary students that I know understand that several planets have moons and that we have one that we call the Moon). — Reinyday, 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose if you look at Category:Moons, you see moons of objects that are not planets, like "dwarf planets", asteroids, and the like. (Yes, a "dwarf planet" is not a planet. See the new definition of planet). 70.55.87.17 00:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Rename to Category:Natural satellites - The rings of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune may be considered "natural satellites" but not "moons". Wikipedia should therefore contain a general category for natural satellites, a sub-category for moons, and a sub-category for rings. George J. Bendo 06:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - From what I'm reading in the above comments, the concern is about precision. I like George J. Bendo's comment above. My only objection is to "natural satellites", since, as noted above, the planets themselves are natural satellites. Natural satellites could be the parent cat for planets (and dwarf planets, and minor planets, and and), and planetary satellites, with the latter being the parent for moons, and rings. All that said, I'm sure that there is even a better way not discussed yet... - jc37 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

People usually do not refer to objects as being satellites of the Sun, although this is technically correct. A brief explanation in the category would clarify that the term "natural satellite" as used here refers to the satellites of objects orbiting the Sun. George J. Bendo 06:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment I honestly think that this is a work in progress and I wonder if perhaps it should be delisted, discussed at someplace without a time constraint. This is too important to just be rushing into. We've just had so many planetary CfDs lately. - jc37 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we could move this to the Category's talk page, and list it at the Astronomical Objects Wikiproject page, and the Astronomy Wikiproject page... 00:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:History of the Kurds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Same as below. Rename to "History of the Kurdish people" Cat out 03:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Sounds unnatural. Metthurst 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Are you suggesting that Kurds are not people? -- Cat out 16:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose - Its fine as it is. Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It isnt inline with naming conventions... Ethnicities are always given the additional "people" for clarity purposes. -- Cat out 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom.
  Abstain, as Wikipedia seems to use both "Xs" and "Xish people". David Kernow ( talk) 03:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC), vote withdrawn 05:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The existing name is what I would expect this category to be called. Wilchett 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per naming conventions. -- InShaneee 16:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What naming convention? If you mean one for categories of people that isn't relevant imo as this is a history category. Brammen 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose in the absence of evidence of a relevant naming convention. Brammen 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename, per nom. Guettarda 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose current name shorter, unambiguous and there is no convention. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Kurdish history, I favor this convention for Category:History by ethnic group. - choster 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose or rename to "Kurdish history". The only pertinent naming policy is to use the simplest commonly used name possible. The "X people" convention, though widespread, is only a superfluous overgeneralisation of the practice of using "people" as a disambiguation tag, in cases where "X" alone could refer both to the ethnic group and its language. Which doesn't apply here. See WP:NAME. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Having a standard would be better. Kurds vs Kurdish people? Why have a Kurdish people and not Kurds? Same reason should apply here -- Cat out 20:36, 15 October 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Kurds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I suggest renaming "Kurds" to "Kurdish people" inline with naming conventions Cat out 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support Pavel Vozenilek 02:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Category:Kurdish people does seem to exist with Category:Kurds. Wierd. One should go. I nominate Category:Kurds to be deleted for being redundent. -- Cat out 09:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge Category:Kurds to Category:Kurdish people and delete. — Reinyday, 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Kurdish people per Cat.- choster 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Kurdish people Guettarda 13:24, 12 October 2006 (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.